The depth or angle of U.S. President Barack Obama's bow -- and handshake -- with Japan's Emperor Akihito has become a heated on-line topic, with sides arching into political camps on whether the greeting went too far -- literally -- or was appropriate based on customs and culture.

I don't pretend to be an expert on bowing in Japan, but a few basic rules of thumb, or backbone, are: the more important a person you are greeting, the deeper and longer you bow, with hands generally at one's sides; and multiple purposes can be served by this act including greeting as well as displays of respect, recognition, apology or gratitude.

While no one called the president's bow an expression of apology or thanks, a number of blogs examined his and other U.S. leaders' historical bent in stooping to diplomatically conquer, with a few labelling the U.S. commander-in-chief "O-Bow-Ma".

The Fox network and the Los Angeles Times blog offered details of Obama's and other official U.S. greetings with the imperial family, including a photo of Vice President Dick Cheney shaking Akihito's hand, and one posted a comment that bowing and handshaking should not be done simultaneously.

A blog from ABC news Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper, citing an academic friend, says both sides have it wrong, as the bow was not over -- or under -- the top in precedence, although it did not display the cultural understanding intended, rather weakness in Japanese terms.

The Huffington Post, meanwhile, seeming to anticipate a "bow row" ahead, noted criticism Obama had already received for a greeting of Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah in April, with Republican Senators blasting him and the White House calling the president "bent over" to shake hands but not in a bow.

Rounding out coverage, Japan's Sankei Shimbun/MSN on-line carried news of the Fox report that Obama's bow was too low for a head of state as well as the comparison to Cheney's 2007 Akihito handshake, adding a slate of imperial photos with slightly different angles and framing.

Photo credit: REUTERS/Jim Young

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the Obama administration's plans to bring terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States -- countering critics who questioned whether it would create security risks.

"There's no question in my mind that those detainees who would be moved to the United States would be held in such a fashion that they would not be any threat to public safety, and I say that as a former prosecutor," Napolitano said in an interview during the Reuters Washington Summit. She served as a U.S. attorney in Arizona during the Clinton administration.

President Barack Obama has pledged to close the controversial prison by Jan. 22, 2010, including bringing some of the terrorism suspects to U.S. soil for trial in military commissions or U.S. criminal courts. There have been questions and doubts about whether his goal can be achieved because of political, legal and logistical complications.

Napolitano held out hope that the administration could meet the fast-approaching deadline: "I would hope so." She declined to comment on the likely location of where the detainees could be held in the United States.

But Republicans have criticized the idea of bringing the terrorism suspects to U.S. soil, arguing that they are not entitled access to the criminal court system and could pose threats to the communities where they may be imprisoned.

Her remarks came as former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey issued a stinging condemnation of the Obama administration plan, writing in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that civilian courts were not the right place to try the terrorism suspects and could make communities, jurors and courts targets.

"Based on my experience trying such cases, and what I saw as attorney general, they aren't. That is not to say that civilian courts cannot ever handle terrorist prosecutions, but rather that their role in a war on terror—to use an unfashionably harsh phrase—should be, as the term 'war' would suggest, a supporting and not a principal role," he wrote in the Wall Street Journal.

Mukasey served as a federal prosecutor in the 1970s and then as a federal judge in New York from 1988 to 2006, presiding over terrorism cases that included the trial of those who plotted to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. He was attorney general under former President George W. Bush.

While Mukasey also argued in his op-ed that imprisoning terrorism suspects in the United States could expose others in the prison to their beliefs, many of the individuals convicted like Zacarias Moussaoui are kept in maximum security facilities isolated from the general population.

He also warned that U.S. criminal court procedures would risk revealing too much sensitive information and that the cases against Guantanamo detainees were not built for civilian court proceedings. Many of the hearings in U.S. District Court for petitions by prisoners seeking their release from Guantanamo have been held in closed session to protect classified information.

So do you believe U.S. criminal courts can handle the terrorism cases and would communities become targets or should terrorism suspects from Guantanamo only be tried in military commissions?

For more news from the Reuters Washington Summit, click here.

- Photo credit: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst (Napolitano speaks to the Reuters Washington Summit)

A war of words over U.S. policy on Afghanistan is heating up between Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill as they await President Barack Obama's new strategy.

"This kind of partisanship in the middle of a war I find to be really out of place," Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Democrat, said.

He was responding to House of Representatives Republican leader John Boehner's statement that "the current political uncertainty should not be used as a pretext for the White House to back away from the counter-insurgency strategy the president announced in March."

Levin, at the Reuters Washington Summit, said former Republican President George W. Bush took three months to decide on the troop surge in Iraq -- "Nobody was saying that President Bush is jeopardizing anything by taking three months to deliberate on a new strategy."

Levin said he agrees with much of what General Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, says.

"One of the things he (McChrystal) says is the deliberative process is useful and healthy. So, I wish Boehner would listen to McChrystal," Levin said.

For more news from the Reuters Washington Summit, click here.

Photo credit: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst (Senator Carl Levin at Reuters Washington Summit)

Remember during the presidential campaign, when Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton was asked about her “likability” compared to that of  rival Barack Obama?

The inference was that people didn’t like her as much as they liked him, even after he told her during a presidential debate: “You’re likable enough.”

That was then.

This is now.

Secretary of State Clinton is more popular (or can we just say likable) than President Obama, according to a Gallup poll released on Thursday.

Clinton is viewed favorably by 62 percent of Americans, just three points below her rating in January. Obama’s favorable rating has fallen 22 points from 78 percent in January to land at 56 percent.

Here’s a look back at that moment in New Hampshire in 2008, when Clinton’s likability was in question.

The Gallup report says the change in the relative popularity of Clinton to Obama may have more to do with their respective jobs than their personalities.

He came into office with sky-high ratings. But a battered economy, healthcare, and two wars have taken a toll  on his numbers.  Clinton is juggling some tough issues too. But the secretary of state is not in the glare of the spotlight as much as her boss.

The poll was taken Oct. 1 through Oct. 4,  before Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize — a surprise that may have given him a boost or helped push his numbers down even more.

We’ll have to wait for the next poll to see.

For more Reuters political coverage click here.

Photo credit:Reuters/Cathal McNaughton (Clinton in Belfast, Northern Ireland, October 12, 2009)

U.S. Representative Barney Frank has never been shy about expressing his opinions. His opening remarks at a hearing he chaired with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Wednesday was no exception. Frank poked fun at a political squabble over healthcare reform as he detailed his position on what to do about non-bank financial firms considered "too big to fail."

    "There will be death panels enacted by this Congress, but they will be for non-bank financial institutions that will not be considered too big to die.
    I say that because we have this euphemism that we are going to be 'resolving' these institutions. It has not been my experience that when someone says they are going to resolve something, they kill it. We are talking about dissolution, not resolution. We are talking about making it unpleasant for the entities. This is not a fate people will want."

WHO has given up on trying to keep any kind of precise count on swine flu, which is just about everywhere now. It's fairly mild but hardly anyone has any immunity, so it will infect far more people than seasonal flu does in an average year. That may mean more serious cases and more deaths than usual, just by virtue of sheer numbers.

It is affecting lots of kids but there are some clear guidelines for health care workers to protect themselves and their families.

Lots of companies are working on vaccines, which likely will not be ready for most countries  until the middle of October.  In the meantime, most patients do not need any treatment at all. People with diabetes, asthma, pregnant women and children who seem to have trouble breathing need prompt treatment, however, and the good news is the antiviral drugs still work well.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has hired only one clerk for the term starting in October 2010, instead of the usual four, fueling speculation that he may be planning to step down next summer, the New York Times reports.

Stevens, 89, is the current court’s longest-serving member. Nominated by Republican President Gerald Ford, Stevens joined the high court in December 1975 and went on to become the leader of its liberal wing.

If  the Chicago-born Stevens steps down, President Barack Obama would have his second opportunity to nominate a justice to the court.

Or maybe Stevens is keeping his options open and planning to hire more clerks later, the New York Times article said. But the newspaper notes that hiring decisions may be an early warning system for hints about the justices’ retirement plans.

It points out that Justice David Souter hired no clerks this spring, in what turned out to be an accurate signal of his decision to step down.

For more Reuters political news, click here.

Photo credit: REUTERS/Larry Downing (Justice John Paul Stevens sits for a photo inside the Supreme Court in Washington)

  Policy-makers, academics and analysts from around the world are gathered at a remote lodge in Wyoming's Jackson Hole this week to reflect on the financial crisis.

    One of the topics of conversation on the sidelines of the conference is whether President Barack Obama will reappoint the chairman of the U.S. central bank -- Ben Bernanke -- whose term ends early next year.

    Two veteran Fed-watchers weigh in: 

GLENN HUBBARD, DEAN OF COLUMBIA'S GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS

     "I think the bar for replacing Bernanke would have to be very high, in the middle of the crisis he has shown determination to take very bold action and his own knowledge has been very specific and helpful in the crisis."

MICKEY LEVY, CHIEF ECONOMIST, BANK OF AMERICA

   "From the Obama administration's point of view, he has done a lot right...financial markets have stabilized, in part due to the very aggressive actions by the Fed. I do think he'll be renominated and then once that occurs he faces just enormous challenges that go way beyond the traditional monetary policy discussions about inflation and economic growth."

White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers is rarely at a loss for words, which makes Tuesday's question-and-answer session at the National Press Club in Washington downright astonishing.

Summers, whose term as president of Harvard University ended rather abruptly after he made some unfortunate remarks about women and math and science aptitude, knew he was on very thin ice when he was asked a question about gender differences in retirement savings.

As soon as the question was asked, laughter spread around the room. Summers himself paused for a good 20 seconds before cracking a joke about how the question must have frightened his staff.

"Now you have just put their health at risk," he said. "I think I will move to the next question."

UPDATE:

See the full clip below:

It's worth watching!

It's one thing they can agree on... baseball. 

Major League Baseball is bringing all five living U.S. presidents together at next week's 80th All-Star Game.

President Barack Obama and his predecessors George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter will appear in a 7-minute video presentation as part of the U.S. sports league's all-star festivities on Tuesday in St. Louis. Baseball called it the first time all living U.S. presidents would participate in a ceremony at a sporting event.

The video address will be part of a pre-game ceremony honoring 30 men and women being recognized by MLB and People magazine for acts of giving and service to their communities. Each person represents one of the sport's 30 teams.

President Obama will follow the video presentation by thorwing out the ceremonial first pitch for the game.

Photo credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque (Bush hosted meeting at White House for all presidents after  Obama became president-elect)