In anticipation of Barack Obama's first visit to China last fall, the country's state-run news agency, Xinhua, collected questions from its readers for the U.S. President. Among them, were these gems:

"You've got a nice figure. Had you thought about shooting commercials or movies or something like that if you didn't win the election?"

"How much wine can you drink for once? Will you play the Truth or Dare game after drinking?"

"Could you encourage American kids not to eat hamburgers all day long?"

"Can I discuss with you China's purchasing Hawaii with U.S. dollars?"

"Will you encourage Americans to marry Chinese people?"

Once my giggles subsided, I stumbled upon a few that made me stop and think. One, in particular, resonates with the current fracas over the Dalai Lama's imminent visit to the United States: "How would it make you feel if China treated Osama Bin Laden like the U.S. treats the Dalai Lama?"

Chinese officials warned President Obama that if he met with the Dalai Lama when the Tibetan spiritual leader visits Washington D.C. this week, as every president has since 1991, it would threaten to dismantle whatever progress has been made in building a positive relationship between the two superpower nations.

Obama refuted the warning and agreed to meet with the 74-year-old Buddhist monk, though he did cancel a meeting in October, presumably to appease Chinese government leaders. Many human rights groups, who see the Dalai Lama as a champion of peace and China as an oppressive tyranny, were outraged by that earlier choice.

This is a tough one, isn't it? Obama's decision to stick to his principles and anger the Chinese government could be potentially causing a major setback in foreign relations. This could be bad for a great many people, including human rights groups. But if he pandered to the wishes of the Chinese, he would be sending a message that, sometimes, might does equal right. It's not a choice I'd want to make, to say the least.

[Image: Bangkok Post]

When Scott Brown won the Senate seat left open by the late Ted Kennedy, liberals and Democrats feared the worst. President Obama himself recognized that Brown's victory would be a major setback for his party, ending the brief period of a Republican filibuster-proof United States Senate that began with Al Franken's election back in June.

Since the term of the hour seems to be "health care," that has been the focus of most news covering Brown's influence in his new position. Specifically, those in favor of health care legislation worry that he was elected just to prevent it. But there are some who think that Brown's victory can be chalked up to his close ties with the American financial industry. The Daily Kos suggests that "this wasn't a 'kill health care' Senate seat purchase. This was a 'preserve my $100 million bonus' Senate seat purchase."

To remind us of why, if this is true, we should be concerned, the Kos posted this ad from Americans United for Change, released the same day that Brown was elected:

Veronica did a great job last week of recapping President Obama's Sate of the Union address. Read her post for an astute analysis of what Obama said, some provocative questions about what the future may hold, and a call to action; you'll be glad you did. But if you're pressed for time, here is the political cartoonist Ed Stein's take:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I don't blame Obama for most of the problems we're facing right now. I blame the junky machinery of the U.S. Government, which may be the most inefficient organization ever formed. Maybe Obama should give an address about that. I'm sure he'd love to, but then he'd get voted out of office. Ain't that the rub?

[Image: InDenverTimes.com. See more of Stein's work at EdSteinInk.com]

I've heard it been said that a great leader leads but also gets others to do some leading. During the State of the Union address last night, President Obama, I hope, made it clear that if we are going to get this country back on track, it is going to take all of us.

He took the Republicans to task for being obstructionist on most bills in the Congress. "Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership." But also reminded the Democrats to use their majority: "I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills." He also took blame for not selling the health insurance reform bill better to the American people.

President Obama proposed a lot of things, some progressive like a cap on student loan repayments and forgiveness after 20 years (which I have no idea how that would be paid) but also some not so much like new offshore drilling (Drill, Baby, Drill?).

Even the most progressive ideas sometimes are implemented in a way that doesn't fulfill the intent. Top universities are giving more aid to wealthier families. Mortgage modifications aren't addressing the fact that homes are underwater and include balloon payments.

And that is where we come in.

I truly believe that President Obama has a progressive streak, but that is all it is, a streak. He also has conservative bend. President Obama said that the Congress and he were voted in to serve the people and the people need to remind them all of what we want. We need to remind them of what that is by pushing them on health care, education funding, jobs and anything else we hold dear.

Do we really want failing schools to be closed and communities disrupted in order to ship students around like cogs in some machine?

Will we really read the earmarks online before the vote in order to voice our opinion?

Will "Don't Ask Don't Tell" really be repealed?

One year after the Lily Ledbetter Act, will we finally push the Senate to pass its partner bill, the Paycheck Fairness Act?

Which way will you push them?

"In the first of four primetime specials that examine some of the country's defining moments, noted broadcaster Tavis Smiley accompanies Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on a diplomatic mission abroad, to meetings on Capitol Hill and within the State Department itself, to give the American public a candid and incisive view of the inner workings of U.S. diplomacy and international relations."

The one-hour program airs on PBS on Wednesday, January 27, from 8:00 - 9:00 pm EST.

[image: One on One With Hillary Clinton courtesy of Tavis Smiley Reports]