Which is why Obama didn't want an election in the first place - a rather cowardly refusal to do the right thing it always seemed to me. Anyhow Kirk is a strong candidate, though since we were students together (at the LSE) is highly open to blackmail from Brits...Only kidding.

But before going, we are at an undisclosed location (alright: Kiawah Island, South Carolina) working out the wonders of the American-designed medical technology that my son will use to control his type one diabetes when back in Britain.

Since I asked for names for the Republicans in 2012 the party has sunk further into disrepair with the Sarah Palin train wreck. I suspect that she is actually a Democrat - a creation of Rahm Emanuel perhaps.

It'll have to be Pawlenty now for the simple reason that he seems to have a little constancy about him: that is their problem; it's not the sex scandals or the dubious TV performances or the ethics investigations that have undone the Republican pretenders, it is the swivel-eyed oddness of the outfit. It can be fixed but step one is recognising the need to fix as Karl Rove seems to grasp.

The other fascinating development in recent days has been the end - or not - of the Obamas' search for a church.

I have suggested it before but let me lay it on the line here in black and white: THE MAN IS A QUAKER. He may not yet know it but that is where his search should end. There is a lovely Meeting House somewhere around Dupont Circle as well so he could get there easily.

As the author asks: "Barack Obama, where are you?"

On healthcare, the answer, I think, is that the loss of Tom Daschle is beginning to be felt - he could have knocked heads together in a way no-one else really can.

Now the day comes down to a visit to a gun shop (we've run out of ammo since Obama took over!) and a nice lunch in Beaufort. But as ever we should overlook individual disappointment to survey the bigger picture: the Republicans have a catastrophic lack of young able leaders who can take on Obama in 2012 as noted here and here.

I hereby challenge someone to come up with a serious name for 2012. First person to post the correct result gets a prize (in 2012). Tempted to offer a free holiday to Argentina but it might have to be something less tangible; respect perhaps.

Meanwhile this is a big week for the future of American healthcare and the questions the president has to answer are set out here in a piece that is hostile but fair I think in pointing out the downsides of the British and Canadian systems.

On the other hand, the US system is grotesquely unfair.

The honest answer surely is that there is a price to pay for fairness - care for the richest Americans would, in the future, be curtailed.

I wonder if they have looked at solitary men driving tractors in sweltering South Carolina fields -- when I went to see him a few months ago he revealed that -- Gladstone like -- he enjoyed getting out into the great outdoors and re-arranging it. Perhaps that's what he's been doing. We picked up as well that his wife didn't want him to run so maybe he's been sulking.

Meanwhile on Iran, the President has had trouble getting his message out on the local media so has been turning again to us foreigners to charm and cajole.

The outreach to foreign media (which began with the satellite channel Al Arabiya) is now an established part of the Obama strategy, and as the BBC has pointed out, can reap the reward of face time with folks CNN et al cannot reach.

Lovely ceremony, proud family, good speeches. And above all a reminder that this administration is not yet fully staffed!

Bizarre but true: Phil (who is a friend so I will say nothing about his competence and politics) is by no means the last aboard. Others still languish un-confirmed and unable to begin their public service.

And yet, in other respects, the administration is getting old - with some real falling out now among constituencies upset by the compromises made in government and worried that Obama is going the same way on their issues that Kennedy did on civil rights.

I suspect the Obama view is that there is a long, long way to go. He faces no imminent election - and might gain politically if his Democratic friends in Congress get singed a little in 2010 - so he presses on at his pace and with his priorities.

And always the knowledge that the backing he received from the middle ground of politics is fragile and needs to be worked on.

He could have coped quite cheerfully with an Ahmadinejad loss of course but also with a clean-cut win where he could have expressed respect for the government and moved on.

But now it is difficult for him to deal substantively with a regime that seems so illegitimate - result: stasis.

And the result of that could be growing pressure for any outreach to Iran to come to an end.

But here is a further thought. The eventual winner of the race to be Virginia's next governor can only stay in the post for two terms. Term limits, which used to be a fashionable cause on the US right, are making a bit of a comeback and for reasons that British voters might recognise.

They can work in legislatures, and even in a parliamentary system in which the executive is based in the legislature it might still be possible to find a way - 12-year limits perhaps? - of getting new blood circulating constantly. But do they work? As ever there is a downside.

But this slightly quieter one (the perspective of those of any faith/opinion who are chucked in jail by any regime) - is interesting, I think.

UPDATE:

Also interesting to get a hostile perspective from the American left.

The reach of my interview with President Obama - not in hotel rooms but in the real living rooms of real people - was as colossal as we promised the White House.

It went from here to here, via here.

(Interestingly, the first two of those websites can be described as conservative.)

My question (actually the question of a colleague but it is a good one) is this: will this internationalist rationalist president learn this week that much of the outside world is not on board for a quiet sensible chat about what makes sense and what does not.

And an observation after meeting him: he should ditch the search for a church and become a Quaker. Talking to him about family matters (type one diabetes of course) he was sympathetic and engaged and plain-spoken without at any stage being the slightest bit sentimental or gushing.

He reminded me of my mother's friends at home in Bath in the UK - direct and serious.

At some stage he is going to have to decide as well whether or not he believes in American exceptionalism.

I do: not in the sense of superiority but in the sense of qualitative uniqueness. Does he? (Rush - don't answer!)

They chose to speak to us now because they want to reach the parts of the world the BBC reaches - with a message that is nuanced and thoughtful as you would expect, and is not - as the president himself told me - an end but rather a beginning.

This is not an apology for the actions of the Bush White House - that the president told me flatly.

Nor is it a speech that is designed only to please the audience - the president will talk about the US Muslim community ("huge and thriving" he called it) and point out misperceptions in the Muslim world's view of the US.

But on human rights, I fear he will disappoint: I asked him straight whether Hosni Mubarak (the Egyptian leader for 28 years!) was an autocrat. Mr Obama told me he was a force for stability and good.

The nicest sight in our afternoon in the White House - Sasha and Malia coming home from school. Jolly laughter as in any happy household - though men with wires in their ears prevented us crossing their path as they skipped down the corridor.

We could do with those fellows chez nous...

PS. You can watch the full interview with President Obama here.

I enjoyed the discussion in the comments - would such an outpouring of opinion be even remotely likely with the appointment of a British Law Lord? Can you name one? I cannot.

On non-diabetic issues: Given the anguish the abortion issue still causes in the US (reflected in comments to this blog) it is strikingly cool of Obama according to this piece - not to have asked about it when he interviewed her!

There was some perfectly legitimate discussion of the issue before the nomination, but generally an acceptance it seems that the issue is not an issue.

Her nomination, it could be argued, is a pro-life decision in the sense that it accepts that life is life and is to be celebrated and lived for the moment, without huge thought about the long-term future.