Remember the Joe Biden gaffe way back when he said that Barack Obama would be tested early in his presidency by a foreign policy crisis? Well, guess that it's finally happened, although not really on the VP's timetable.
Since I have no Egypt expertise, I can only remind you that the Monkey Cage is a good place to go for links to people who knew something about that part of the world before last week (and they have some excellent links for keeping up on the news), and to steer you elsewhere for what's happening inside Egypt. I do, however, have some cautions about what we're likely to hear in the US press and commentary. Consider this a general news-followers guide to any kind of fast-breaking story, especially those taking place in foreign nations.
1. American press and political reaction to things like this invariably overstate the American role in whatever is going on. The US of course does have a lot to do with Egypt, and it may or may not be true that American policy can influence events there, but US coverage in these situations almost always overestimates that potential influence. That's even more true about statements, as opposed to actions, by US government officials.
2. I have no position on the best choices for President Obama and Secretary Clinton, but media-watchers should remember that there's usually a media bias here in favor of action. Action may or may not be appropriate; it's worth remembering that during the most successful mass outbreak of democracy ever, in 1989, President George H.W. Bush was criticized for being overly cautious in his public statements. Again, I don't have any suggestion of what's best to do, but remember that sometimes doing as little as possible (especially publicly) can be an effective strategy.
3. There's also a media bias, and also a pundit bias, in my opinion in favor of believing that there's a good solution to all problems -- and that democracy elsewhere is always a good thing for the US. Again, that may be so, and I do think it makes sense for US policy to have a principled preference for democracy in other nations, but it may be that in some nations a healthy democracy would also produce anti-American policies, and that's a real dilemma for American policy.
4. Add-on to point #1: you're going to hear a lot of people claiming that this or that American policy is responsible for anything good (or bad) that happens, but odds are that such claims are massively overstated.
5. Many, although not all, of the people who are going to give opinions early on are basically going to be just plugging whatever they usually say into this situation without having any idea whether or not it applies. The sorts of people who are inclined to say "we'll just have to wait and see" are not usually the sorts who want to be on CNN giving their opinions, and at any rate CNN doesn't usually ask them back a second time. The sorts of people who are inclined to immediately attribute things to social media/American imperialism/American fecklessness/that we haven't started drilling in ANWR/that we haven't passed an energy tax/that it's all Barack Obama's fault/that it's all Sarah Palin's fault (pause, breath...) do get asked back.
6. And, finally, whenever there's lots of fast-breaking news, the odds are very good that some of what you hear is going to be factually wrong. That goes for live-bloggers, it goes for tweets, and it goes for CNN and other established, credentialed reporters. Major media outlets made basic factual errors about what was happening during the Tucson massacre a few weeks ago, around the Christmas and Times Square terrorist attempts, and, of course, during the September 11 attacks.