Cbs News

by Mark Silva

President Barack Obama will face a tough audience when he delivers his long-promised address to the Muslim world on Thursday from Cairo University.

In some of the Arab nations and territory in the region, most notably his host country of Egypt, public views about the "job performance of the leadership of the United States'' have improved remarkably from one president to the next - from the view that Arabs held of former President George W. Bush's leadership last summer, to the views they voiced of Obama's leadership in March.

Yet even in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the two nations where Obama will begin his journey this week, a positive view of U.S. leadership is still shared by about one in four of those surveyed: Up from 12 percent last summer to 29 percent in Saudi Arabia, according to survey results released today by the Gallup Poll on the eve of the president's trip, and up from just 6 percent to 25 percent in Egypt.

"These upsurges, which ranged from 11 percentage points in Syria to 23 points in Tunisia, may reflect positive reception to Obama and his administration's public outreach to the Muslim world,'' Gallup reports today. "Obama will deliver his message Thursday with an arguably stronger basis of support than his predecessor ever had in many Arab countries. Nonetheless, approval remains low and underscores the work that remains as Obama seeks to pave a new, more positive way forward.''

In nearly all of the 11 nations and territories where the public was surveyed, public opinion of the U.S. leadership has improved from last year - up 23 percent in Tunisia, from 14 to 37, up 22 points in Algergia from 25 to 47, up 14 points in Qatar, from 8 to 22 percent, up 13 in Kuwait, from 20 ro 33, up 11 in Syria, from 4 to 15 percentage point approval.

In two palaces, however, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, the view of U.S. leadership is no brighter today than it was last summer: 22 percent approval registered in Lebanon, down from 25 points last summer, 7 percent in the Palestinian territories, down from 13 points in June.

St. Paul's Webster Magnet Elementary School changed its name last month to the Barack and Michelle Obama Service Learning Elementary. What's wrong with that? Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editor David Shribman makes an impassioned plea on behalf of the school's namesake:

Webster was the greatest orator in the age of great oratory; some of his words remain in the American memory, even in this ahistorical age. He was probably the most eminent Supreme Court lawyer in American history, having argued 249 cases before the court, including several of the landmark cases of the early 19th century that shaped constitutional law in the United States for generations. And he was one of the greatest secretaries of state ever (and the first to serve non-consecutive terms, one under William Henry Harrison and John Tyler, another under Millard Fillmore).

"He achieved great distinction," says Kenneth E. Shewmaker, editor of the "Diplomatic Papers of Daniel Webster." "Barack Obama may have greater distinction because he had the chance to be president. A senator doesn't have that kind of power, but if we understand his legacy, including his role in creating the sense of American nationalism, we wouldn't wipe Webster's name off our buildings."

After pleading Webster's case, Shribman makes the larger case for the preservation of historical memory:

Changing the name of a school from Webster to Obama is a symptom of a larger problem in American life.

"The kind of present-mindedness that wipes out historical knowledge is a cultural fault of American society," says Hyman Berman, an emeritus history professor at the University of Minnesota. Alan Berolzheimer, a Norwich, Vt., historian who as a young man worked on cataloging and publishing the "Webster Papers," adds: "You don't make light of a long-standing historical figure whom a community honored in the first place."

Americans like to name schools after political figures. In Minnesota, there is an elementary school in St. Paul and a high school in Minneapolis named for the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, who died in a plane crash while running for re-election in 2002. The University of Minnesota has the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, named for the mayor, senator and vice president who is the state's greatest historical figure. And the University of Minnesota Law School is housed in Walter F. Mondale Hall, named for the former senator and vice president. Mondale is very much alive.

"There should be room for Daniel Webster on our schools," says Mondale, who is 81. "He would want it that way, and he deserves a place. And though I know names can go up and they can go down, let's leave Mondale Hall alone for a while."

In working on the column, Shribman found the powers-that-be at Webster Magnet School present a case study in historical amnesia:

There is no trace at all of Webster in the Obama Service Learning Elementary school today, not even a picture of Webster, who may have been the subject of more formal portraits of any man of his time, if not of all American history. Indeed, in the period leading up to the vote on the name change, the principal of the school, Lori Simon, actually had to figure out for whom the school was named originally.

If Webster had been remembered at the school, I am quite certain that what was "remembered" would have been wrong. Such is certainly the case with what high school students are taught, for example, about Lincoln, whose political hero was Webster, when they are taught anything at all.

VA State Sen. Creigh Deeds (D) is on the air in Northern VA today with a spot -- titled "Tradition" -- that pitches his endorsement by the Washington Post.

Script: "On June 9th, which Democrat has the most experience to carry on the policies of Mark Warner and Tim Kaine? The Washington Post says it's Creigh Deeds. Deeds 'would make transportation his first priority.'"

"Tradition" will air on broadcast and cable stations in NoVA, putting Deeds on the airwaves in every in-state media market through the 6/9 Dem primary. It's his first spot in the vote-rich DC suburbs and airs as one poll shows him surging past rivals Terry McAuliffe and Brian Moran.

So John Cole has pretty much addressed this, but last week Jonathan Chait criticized me and others for referring to Jeffrey Rosen's piece on Sonia Sotomayor as "gossip".

"Gossip" is an effective label for those who wish to denigrate Rosen's reporting or the reputation of TNR, but it's an inaccurate one. Gossip is unverified information. Gossip is something you hear all the time--say, Senator X mistreats his staff. No serious publication can pass off gossip as reporting. However, if you actually speak with the principals firsthand--you interview staffers for Senator X who report that he mistreats them--then what you have is reporting. That's what Jeff did. He spoke first-hand with several of Sotomayor's former clerks, who provided a mixed picture. Unsurprisingly, they declined to put their names on the record, but that's utterly standard for people who are speaking in unflattering terms about people they worked with or for.

Chait is one of my favorite writers on the interwebs, but this is less than persuasive. A big publication printing gossip doesn't change the definition of gossip. The issue isn't that the information was "unverified" as in, no one told Rosen these things, it's that it was objectively unverifiable, as in, assertions about Sotomayor's intelligence are unprovable. Rosen, as a well-respected legal expert, could have made that argument himself in some form, but he didn't, possibly because he wanted to present it as an "unbiased" observation. But since the source is anonymous, there's no way to judge the individual's motivations or perspective. There's reason to give people anonymity under certain circumstances to relay unpleasant information about a colleague or a superior, but not when that information can't be verified. Anonymous, unverifiable information is gossip.

Most oddly, Chait suggests I, along with others have some sort of agenda against the New Republic. I can only speak for myself, but in my many posts on Sotomayor and Rosen, I didn't say anything about the New Republic except that to identify the publication Rosen had been writing in.?

-- A. Serwer

Oy:

(Hat tip: Conor)