Obama Has Made Mistakes, But Let's Not Forget W.

The news media and the public need more perspective as they evaluate Barack Obama these days.

Obama and the Democrats have been sliding downward in the polls in the past several months. Of course, the continuing economic recession, the war in Afghanistan and the messy, unproductive struggle over health care reform have contributed to the President's vulnerability. I think Obama deserves serious criticism for his decision to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and his lack of leadership in the health care debate.

But, you know what? I'm getting tired of the non-stop attacks from the Right and the other whiners and moaners who seem to think Obama is to blame for everything in the universe - including the H1N1 virus.

I just read George Will's Dec. 17th column that ripped Obama, and it was the "last straw." Among Will's complaints about Obama is his observation that Obama, in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, used the pronoun "I" 38 times. Will also notes that "...the fruits of the president's policy of "engagement" have been meager. Witness Iran continuing its nuclear program and China being difficult about carbon emissions...."

Is Will suggesting that it's inexcusable for Obama to have not forced Iran to shut down its nuclear program by now? Or, that another president would have gotten China to do whatever the US wished on carbon emissions? Give me a break! This is what I cannot stand about right-wingers, who seem to, sadly, dominate the airwaves far too often: They're routinely selective about which truths to share and which to disregard. Often, they don't bring up Bush's eight years and the tremendous damage his administration did.

Excuse me Mr. Will, but, would you argue that George W. Bush did a better job "managing" the US relationship with Iran? Bush took unnecessary military action by invading Iraq and did enough "sabre-rattling" with Iran to further poison our relationship with Iran. Bush and his White House chose to spew hawkish rhetoric toward Iran and seemed to suggest the US longed to go to war with Iran. Gee, that helped the US and Iran a lot, didn't it, Mr. Will?

Meanwhile, Obama came in and openly spoke of his willingness to try talking with Iran while, at the same time, seeing how Iran behaved. Now, after nearly a year of Iran being unresponsive, Obama is in a much stronger position with countries around the world to pursue economic sanctions against Iran, if necessary, because he handled the relationship carefully and thoughtfully.
Would you dispute that, George Will? You'd probably say - without factual back-up - that somehow, Obama worsened the situation and that you prefer the tough (reckless) talk of Dick Cheney. I don't know. I'm just sick of everyone blaming Obama for everything.

Let's pretend we have an imaginary checklist and let's compare Obama with George W Bush:

• Obama is more intelligent. Far more.
• Obama is more capable, across the board. Far more.
• Obama has demonstrated a greater capacity to listen to others, including those who disagree with him - while Bush failed to do this, particularly in his decision to invade Iraq.
• An illustration: Obama presided over a careful, thorough review before his decision on Afghanistan (though I disagree with his conclusion!) while Bush reportedly spoke with very few who dissented (with him) on Iraq.
• Obama has done FAR MORE to improve the US' image and relationship with the rest of the world. Bush's actions and policies hurt the US' image in many parts of the world.
• Obama is "hands-on." He gives us a sense that he's "on top of things" - In fact, he's similar to former President Bill Clinton in his impressive, sweeping command of facts. Bush was, disturbingly vague about numerous topics and conveyed a sense that without his cue-cards, he'd be LOST, and, I mean LOST. I still believe Cheney and others ran the country more than Bush. Bush was the "puppet" who others manipulated.
• Obama is an outstanding speaker who can inspire in prepared remarks AND speak articulately and directly in responding to specific queries on policy. Bush could do neither and often had to defer to others to respond with details.
• Obama has shown he can remain "in the fray" on a number of fronts simultaneously while keeping his cool and advancing action and change. Bush did not show a similar capacity - at least in public. He gave the impression he was the "front man" for a group of men who made the real decisions in the corridors of the White House.

I could go on and on - and, you could too. We've forgotten how low our expectations fell during the Bush years. It was a hopeless feeling. You had the sense decisions were made secretly and the Administration was not listening.

Obama has serious flaws - like every President - but, it's all relative. He arrived with the country on the brink of another Depression. His administration helped ward off a Depression, but, it wasn't done easily or without some ugly setbacks. The stimulus bill was flawed and has been implemented with those problems on full display.

Yet, I don't recall a President in my lifetime who had to wrestle with more pressing domestic and foreign policy matters on the fly during his first year. It has been a roller coaster ride for Obama. His decision on Afghanistan, has been, by far, his worst move, in my view. Also, his effort to get a comprehensive health care reform bill passed has unraveled badly. The bill now seems so flawed and watered down that its value and potential impact have diminished. Obama chose to stay in the background during almost the entire debate. He has failed to step up and assert what he believes MUST stay in the health care bill or not. He and his team have failed to lead the US representatives and senators and other involved parties; instead, the debate for months has been out-of-control and created an impression that the White House is not in charge.

In the end, however, I prefer Obama not only over Bush, but, a number of other Presidents because of the strengths he DOES have. What I am tired of is the avalanche of disproportionate criticism and attacks that has been directed at Obama. I believe a sizeable portion of that venom is due to racism. Another portion, I think, is due to the short attention span of the news media and the public. People want problems solved immediately and without making many sacrifices most of the time.

It's not an easy time to be President of the United States. If we're measuring the President's ups and downs constantly, let's do that by comparing him to others who have held the office most recently. I'm delighted Obama is our leader rather than George W. Bush or others who came before, and, also had flaws and made mistakes.

Obama's Disappointing Decision on Afghanistan

I oppose President Obama's decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan for many reasons, but, if I had to identify the most all-encompassing one, it's that I oppose war unless our national security is at risk. I don't think the President came anywhere close to making the case that such a risk exists during his speech at West Point last week.

Like most Americans, I have extremely limited knowledge of what's really going on in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and about developments with the Taliban, Al Qaeda or the reactions of the people who live in those two countries. There is, obviously, an enormous amount of information that Obama's team of military and foreign policy decisionmakers reviewed that the rest of us never saw - so, I base my opinions on the limited coverage I've seen on television or read in newspapers. The media, I think, presents an incomplete, oversimplified, often-confusing picture of what's going on in these countries.

However, I find the new US policy in Afghanistan troubling not only because the Obama Administration failed to justify putting the lives of thousands of US men and women at risk, but, failed to provide adequate answers to so many substantive questions about its escalation of military involvement. In addition, there are factors about how the decision evolved that concern me.

Here are just a few examples of my questions or concerns about Obama's decision:


1) The Obama administration has not sufficiently explained why Al Qaeda's presence in Pakistan and other countries amounts to a threat to our national security warranting 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, where all acknowledge, there are very few Al Qaeda members still located.

It seems the crux of Obama's policy is that by adding US troops, we'll train the Afghan troops, who will then be better-equipped to help prevent Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven to Al Qaeda. However, this is a "hypothetical deterrent" because, in fact, we don't know exactly what Al Qaeda will do if the Taliban presence in Afghanistan grows in power and influence. (We don't know exactly what the Taliban or Al Qaeda will do - period). Perhaps Al Qaeda will linger in Pakistan or go to other locations. So, Obama's policy is a hypothetical premise for war -- which is NOT enough.
Al Qaeda poses an ongoing threat to the US - as do other terrorist groups, but, if we do NOT send these 30,000 troops, does Al Qaeda pose a significantly greater threat? I guess the US generals, military advisors and Obama's team are arguing "they might pose a greater threat in the future," but, that argument is NOT a rationale for escalating a war.

2) Did the US exhaust attempts to use diplomacy and non-military action or moves to address the problems in Afgahnistan?

Tom Hayden, former Chicago 7 leader and former California state senator, wrote a Dec. 1st piece for Nation in which he reported that some elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan might be willing to negotiate a "peace settlement" in the country "without safe havens for Al Qaeda..."
Instead, Hayden concluded, the US chose to pursue military action. Were there signs of potential - as Hayden wrote? I don't know, but, I hope the US pursued any opportunities for negotiating settlements of any kind.

There has been little news about efforts to negotiate anything in Afghanistan or Pakistan, but, does that mean we must assume any resolution will come only through continuous war?

3) Did President Obama provide enough evidence that, in fact, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan will be better in July 2011 (or, later, when our troops will likely leave) as a result of the 30,000 troops going there?

No, he did not. Obama and his military advisors are banking on the Afghan troops being ready to take responsibility after receiving training and assistance from US troops. However, let's face it: we simply don't know how that "training" and "readiness" will work out. It certainly seems very possible that either: a) Events might not evolve as the US predicts in terms of Al Qaeda rushing into Afghanistan if and when an increased Taliban presence evolves and provides a "safe haven;" or, b) Developments in Pakistan might unravel in ways we cannot anticipate given the tremendous instability there now, making our "surge" in Afghanistan less relevant.

4) Does the Obama administration have good reason to believe the corrupt Karzai government will be a "reliable partner" in resisting the Taliban?

Clearly, this is a weak part of the Administration's plan. At the same time, President Obama is hoping for the best from Karzai, he's saying things like "the days of providing a blank check" are over. Repeated reports have document the corruption and ineffectivenss of Karzai's government. How will Obama & the US transform Karzai's approach overnight? How can the US rely on this government for much of anything? Within days of Obama's speech, Karzai was voicing concern about the US withdrawing too early. It seems the US runs a tremendous risk, now, of taking on a role way too invasive and large in trying to implement its "policy" and that US effort is more likely to lead to resentment, resistance, hostility and non-cooperation from Afghan security forces and civilians. People in other countries don't like the US coming in and dictating what they need to do - period.

5) Obama has repeatedly pointed to Pakistan as the real object of US concern; yet, in Pakistan as well, there is much uncertainty over how an increased US military role in Afghanistan will make a difference.

It seems the Administration is trying hard, through the troop increase, to send a loud, clear signal to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan that "You won't be able to come into Afghanistan because we're shoring things up there..." Yet, again, is there enough evidence that we know the impact of this troop increase? Al Qaeda has resided primarily in Pakistan in the past few years, including on the border regions, but can the US really know Al Qaeda's next moves and destinations? A war has been raging much more in Pakistan between the Pakistan Army and Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan.

6) Reports have documented that Pakistan has, until the recent past, been unwilling to take on Al Qaeda in its own country. There is much turmoil in Pakistan. The US needs to work very hard to help Pakistan maintain stability without doing so in the role of "aggressive intervenor."

In my limited attempts to follow this story, I've been intrigued and troubled by the fact that Pakistan has lent its support to the Taliban in the past and often done little to attempt to quell or defeat Al Qaeda forces in its own country. Now, recently, the US has supposedly pressured Pakistan's army to take far more decisive action against Al Qaeda.. Clearly, the US can quietly provide much assistance.
The point is that Pakistan is the place we need to focus more now - not Afghanistan.

7) Therefore, a related point: Why couldn't the US restrict its involvement to: a) A much more focused effort to support Pakistan's "containment" of Al Qaeda in Pakistan; b) Continuing to support Pakistan's targeting of Al Qaeda leaders and halting of any moves by Al Qaeda that pose any threats to the government of Pakistan?

8) In the end, President Obama's action pleased the military and his Defense Secretary, but, was the President perhaps too influenced by the powerful US military, who - let's face it - usually advocate for more troops and more military action rather than the alternatives?

I thought Obama should have publicly scolded General Stanley McCrystal, when McCrystal came out, months ago, and publicly called for a large increase in troops. (He did this by leaking a document to the Washington Post) McCrystal was out of line and deserved a reprimand. Instead, in the end, McCrystal got most of the troops he wanted. What happened to the "Biden plan" - for sending a much, much smaller number of troops and focusing our efforts more on containing Al Qaeda? What happened to Obama, the "peace candidate" in 2008, when he espoused more common sense in our policy toward Iraq? It seems Obama, through this decisionmaking process, has morphed into "another conventional US President," who, in his desire to avoid risks, ends up following the influence of the military - and, in doing so - abandons his principles and good instincts.

9) How - after months of a careful, deliberative "review" of matters relating to his decision - can President Obama be so vague about whether and when the US troops will begin to withdraw in July, 2011?

In the week since his speech, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been asserting, in remarks, that, in fact July, 2011 will just mark the "beginning" of a US assessment of how and when to initiate withdrawal of troops. In his speech, Obama said that the US training of Afghan forces would "allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011..." Yes, Obama said the US would consider "conditions on the ground" in executing the withdrawal, but, if he intended to identify the date, shouldn't he have stood by it? Instead, Gates has been attempting to re-define Obama's words and is, in essence, saying we'll stay longer, if necessary. Who's in charge here, President Obama? Don't you realize this backpedaling makes you look weak?

10) Doesn't it make sense to at least give at least a minute's thought to whether there are any OTHER steps the US might take to reduce the threat of terrorism by Al Qaeda?

Acting in the role of "occupier," in Afghanistan surely helps fan the flames of anger and resistance to United States. The Afghan people, understandably, do not want our troops there. The more the US lingers in other countries - flexing our military muscles - the more the US assumes an image that can stir hatred, resistance, anger and help make enemies out of individuals who might previously be neutral.

I think it'd help to talk to former Al Qaeda members, former Taliban members and people all over the world about what steps they believe would help reduce terrroism.

Why don't we hear more about how leaders of countries are meeting - frequently, for that matter - to discuss strategies, steps and actions - that they might take to address the underlying causes of terrorism? Should the world just give up on that - and go on assuming that a relatively small group of Islamic terrorists should hold the rest of us hostage?

I'm not suggesting we stop trying to identify, or, eliminate those leaders of Al Qaeda we know responsible for the killing of many people. Sometimes, clearly, counter-terrorism, and military action is justified and probably the only effective course. On the other hand, it's time leaders and citizens from across the world try talking about alternative ways to deal with terrorism.

Capuano Needs Super Finish to Catch Coakley

I'm still waiting for Martha Coakley to give me a reason to vote for her in the Dec. 8th Democratic Primary election for the US Senate seat in Massachusetts.

I've still seen nothing. Coakley has run an overly cautious, bland, uninspiring campaign, particularly when you consider the excitement and honor she must feel about the chance to replace the late US Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Coakley is the state attorney general, after having served for years as a district attorney. She's been around the block. She's got to know how to run a more substantive campaign. Instead, it appears that because she's the frontrunner, she's decided to avoid saying anything with an edge or a risky component to it.

I never like it when any candidate chooses this risk-avoidance strategy. Further, I cannot stand it when political pundits and reporters keep pointing out that Coakley's using this approach and saying, openly, that it's smart, or, makes such wise, strategic sense.

So, let me get this straight. Coakley's risk-avoidance is considered fine and dandy at a time when our country is facing all kinds of crises and important decisions in both the domestic and foreign policy arenas. We desparately need to hear as much as possible from these four Democratic candidates about their views, their passions, their experiences -- and, what, specifically, they'd do in Washington to improve things.

So, what have I heard from all four? I've continued to observe that Mike Capuano is the most bold, outspoken, substantive, clear communicator of the candidates. At the end of an exchange with the four of them, you tend to know where Capuano stands the most clearly. Why is that?

It's no coincidence. It's because Capuano speaks his mind and acts naturally. He's a feisty guy who's fueled by anger at at times, but, his anger is directed at the right targets. He's impatient with the status quo, the bureaucracy and the forces that prevent change. Sure, I wish, at times, that he'd squelch some of the angry intonation in his voice and replace it with a tactful, cool tone, but, in the end, I like what Capuano, an experienced, battle-tested US Representative, brings to the table.

What have the other two major candidates offered>

Steve Pagliuca, the Celtics co-owner, keeps displaying his "novice" qualities as a candidate. He looks, acts and sounds like a rookie. His television and radio commercials continue to sound "bush-league." He sounds bland most of the time. I think the most distinctive thing he's done so far is to produce an advertisement critical of Coakley and Capuano. Have I really learned anything about this guy? No. I learned early on that he supported Mitt Romney in an earlier campaign, and, I haven't even heard him explain why the hell he's even in a Democratic primary. Apparently, he thinks all his has to do is fill the airwaves with his fluffy, empty ads that, essentially, say "I'm Steve Pagliuca and I want to win."

Then, there's Alan Khazei, the co-founder of City Year. Khazei has run an unconventional, original campaign in which he often says something unpredictable or more interesting and thoughtful than his opponents. However, he's completely untested and I still feel there's something objectionable about electing a complete newcomer to such an important post by catapulting him immediately to fill the seat of perhaps the greatest US Senator in the history of the country. Why can't Khazei pay some dues? Shouldn't he have run for another office before seeking the US Senate seat?

Capuano says his much more extensive experience means a lot. I agree with him - especially in these fragile, crazy times we live in. I want to know Capuano is down in DC opposing any additional involvement in Afghanistan. I can't imagine any of the other three voicing that opposition as assertively and effectively than Mike Capuano. That's important.

I hope Capuano does well in the debates this week. It's probably his last chance to mount a surge to pass Coakley. The pollsters have said some of Coakley's support is "soft." I guess we'll find out.

I would like to think that the candidate who displays the most good ideas, has strong stands on issues, a clear statement of purpose, and shows the courage of his or her convictios will emerge by the Dec. 8th Primary. I expect Mike Capuano to be that person.

A candidate should be rewarded for speaking with boldness and candor and lose points for deliberately not saying anything risky out of fear of losing votes. Capuano over Coakley.

The Media Keeps Forcing Sarah Palin on Us

"Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story".......or so, the line goes.

Well, that quote applies perfectly to "The Sarah Palin Story." It's a media-generated, media-hyped story that doesn't correspond with realities on the ground.

So, for instance, while you'd expect the release of Palin's new book this week to draw coverage,
the disturbing part is we're being bombarded with images and stories about Palin that suggest far more than a book release is going on. The two underlying premises to the Palin story are:
A) That Palin is one of the most compelling, important figures in American politics today, and, B) That Palin is a serious, potential presidentidal candidate in 2012.

The only problem: There are many facts that severely undercut both these premises, making the coverage of Palin story, really, in the end -----all about attracting higher TV ratings.
Palin has done nothing to prove she is an important figure in American politics -- unless you consider her capacity to attract media coverage some kind of "accomplishment." I certainly don't. I've seen too many people - like Oliver North, or, Ross Perot - generate enormous media coverage (as "potential leaders") that was undeserved. Further, in 2008, the most dramatic way she distinguished herself as a vice presidential candidate was in displaying how unqualified she was to serve as VP or president.

The big thing no network tells you is that when Sarah Palin is covered, she consistently attracts good ratings. She creates a "buzz.' When a former politician or entertainer or anyone draws ratings, he or she is likely to be covered in any way possible as often as possible. That's why we keep seeing Palin's face on TV even when there is NO news or no relative importance to what she's doing. No one on television ever discusses this "market research" that drives their decisions about what to cover.

Of course, one reason Palin draws ratings is that she's good-looking - and, again, this is, unsurprisingly, viewed as more significant than the content of what she's saying. By the way, can anyone identify a few important ways that Palin has contributed ideas to our country's public policy agenda since she emerged on the scene in August, 2008 as McCain's "surprise" VP candidate? I cannot think of any Palin contributions. (I've read that while she was governor, Alaska did a few good things in the area of energy, but, even with that, I don't recall being able to conclude she had offered some original idea or proposal).

In fact, I think on can argue that the only way Palin deserves another shot on the national stage is is she pays a lot of dues first. If she had remained as governor, let's say, and learned a lot about national issues and foreign policy and traveled the world for eight or ten years - to the point that she could speak with far more knowledge and experience, well, then, she'd be in a totally different position, wouldn't she?

The reality is, however, that even though Palin's most salient action since Nov. 2008 was to quit as governor of Alaska before her term ended, she's been in the news or discussed on political talk shows A LOT. Now, with Palin appearing on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" and "Barbara Walters" and others, both network news and cable news/entertainment stations are on a HIGH. It's been all Palin - all the time.

Meanwhile, Palin's history as a vice presidential candidate remains what it was: She ran a very poor campaign and, by objective measures, appeared strikingly unqualified. She repeatedly spoke about issues with a striking lack of facts, background or context. She answered questions in nationally televised interviews in embarrassing fashion.
She repeatedly attacked candidate Barack Obama in a reckless, ugly way, saying things like "He's pal-ling around with terrorists" (referring to Obama's acquaintance with Bill Ayers) She inexusably, repeatedly questioned Obama's patriotism.

Then, after the campaign. Palin complained and whined about how McCain's camp had treated her. We kept hearing about her daughter, Bristol's, baby and her fiancee, Levi Johston. We heard about how "Levi said this" and "Levi said that" Who cares?

In the meantime, the news media kept spouting the same crap: "Will Sarah run in 2012?"
"She's an exciting figure"........What will her impact be?" Palin's resignation as governor had zero impact on the speculation and discussion about her future.

I still just don't get it. Do any producers or executive producers who run political talk shows on television or radio even care about the truth anymore? Does it matter that Palin was a BAD candidate for vice president? What will it take for you to STOP covering Sarah Palin so much?

Palin told Oprah yesterday that a run for president in 2012 was "not on my radar screen." Gee, I wonder it that would slow the coverage down?

Last night, I heard CNN report that in a recent poll, 70 percent of the American people said they didn't think Palin was qualified to be President. Does that matter to the top producers of the infotainment we see on TV every night? No, that's no problem. Who cares if Palin is unqualified and most people believe she's unqualified? Let's keep putting her name and face out there!!!

What I find so disturbing is that some people confuse media coverage of a person with that person's authentic contributions. So, some who keep seeing Palin's image conclude: "Wow, that Palin is really important. She must have certain qualities I don't see if the TV people think she's worth covering so much..."

Things have gotten so blurred in this country: The media creates someone or some story and then comments on the person or story as if they have nothing to do with the media.

Look at the "balloon boy" story. The news media went totally bonkers over the story, then, when questions arose about it being a hoax, the media began covering that without mentioning that their crazy, reckless initial coverage of the balloon is what MADE the story!!! If a news executive had restrained its producers from reporting on the balloon until it was verified that a boy was in the balloon, there would have been NO STORY.

So, last night, when I heard Larry King refer to the "Sarah Palin phenomenon," it made me sick. Who believes there is a "Sarah Palin phenomenon"? Who is continuing to fan the flames of that "phenomenon"?

Only the television executives -and the Larry Kings of the world - who want to keep their ratings high. I've seen no evidence of the "Palin phenomenon" outside in Massachusetts today.

You know what's funny? When I watched Palin on "Oprah," yesterday, she seemed more relaxed, and, a bit more likeable than I think I've seen her in all other appearances. Maybe it was because she was NOT a candidate for high office, but, just conversing, as a citizen.

If only Palin could make a Shermanesque statement saying she'll never - ever - run for President. Maybe that'd slow the coverage a bit?

Who am I kidding? Even that wouldn't stop "The Palin Story," a Media Phenomenon.

Obama Needs to Seize Control of Health Care Reform Effort

Take the wheel, Mr. President. The car is swerving all over the road. Are you going to drive it? or, let it keep swerving and maybe go off the road - as if you're a bystander?

It's not a bad metaphor for how I feel about President Obama's role in trying to close the deal with health care reform. The President has to step up now and be The Leader of health care reform efforts. He has failed to do so for most of this process in 2009, allowing US Senators, Representatives and other parties to knock his proverbial car off the road far too often.

Obama is driving me crazy the way he keeps allowing others to dominate the public debate - even with the stakes getting bigger by the day. He and his top advisors team seem oblivious to the perception that Obama is - still - appearing unclear on what he wants most in the final legislation and that he appears weak. He appears to be getting pushed around by others and far too detached about the actual content of the emerging bill.

The latest bad sign? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Tuesday, Nov. 3rd, suddenly remarked that the Senate might not get a health care bill completed during this calendar year.

What?????

For the past year, all I've read is about the Obama team felt it was essential to get this major legislation done during the President's first year. Remember how President Obama seemed disappointed when the Administration had to accept that the Congress would have to delay action on the bill until after the summer recess - and, instead, wait until the fall?

So, since Tuesday, I've been waiting and hoping that Obama would surprise me and come out with a strong statement correcting Harry Reid and perhaps saying "We WILL take action on this bill by the end of this year." But, NO-OO--OO........Instead, there has been the typical Obama silence. At this moment, (on Thurs, Nov. 5) Obama's silence makes Harry Reid look like the leader on health care and makes Obama seem like a passive, helpless observer.

President Obama and his team cannot sit back and let Reid's statement hang there for another few days. Obama needs to articulate his position on his view of the deadline for a bill OR to explain that he, too, feels legislation may be delayed. (I hope he does not allow delay because, I think it could jeopardize any legislation and hurt his entire presidency)

What baffles me is the Obama team was so skilled in communicating with the public during the 2008 presidential campaign. They didn't allow time to pass before responding to sound bites from their opponents during the primary and the general election. Yet, in the White House, there has been a tremendous drop-off in sensing when the President or a surrogate needs to make a statement or send a signal to convey important messages. With health care reform, in particular, the Obama team has been incredibly passive, allowing months and months to pass without Obama stepping forward and grabbing the bullhorn to declare what he's for and what HAS to be done.

Now, with 2009 winding down, and potential action by the US House on health care legislation approaching within the next few days, will the Obama White House take the initiative and explain what the hell is going on? Where is the President on the public option - bottom-line?
What about the bill's impact on the deficit? Will Obama reassure people that the bill will not amount to runaway government spending without sufficient accountability? I'm not personally worried about that, but, all signs suggest many Americans are - and the White House should wake up and address those concerns.

Obama used to talk about health care reform every day on the 2008 campaign trail. He knows the issue cold. Then, in his early weeks as President - despite the economy being in horrific condition - Obama decided to go forward with a major attempt to reform health care this year. He knew it'd be very risky with the economy as a distraction for all, yet, he did so.

It was puzzling that he chose to let the US Congress play such a major role in developing legislation, but, it has been far more puzzling to observe Obama let month after month go by without asserting himself more in the process. Maybe he knows the bill will be so flawed that he wants a bit of distance, but, it's way too late for that. He's in it up to his neck now.

How Obama handles health care reform in the next several weeks, and, perhaps months, will be an enormous statement about his presidency.

Take the wheel, President Obama. Get out of the passenger seat and start driving.

Why I Support Mike Capuano For the US Senate

I've been so disappointed, and, at times, disgusted by the silence and cowardice of members of the US Congress in recent years.

Congressmen failed to oppose the US invasion of Iraq. Congressmen allowed former President George W. Bush to use 9/11 as a justification to expand powers to the executive branch. In early 2009, even with our economy in freefall, Congressmen failed to unite in collaborative action. Instead of acting like grown-ups and facing adversity by working with the new President to develop the best economic stimulus package, members of both parties were at their worst, bickering as they acted in their own self-interests before, finally, passing a flawed bill.
The US Senate has not been much better. Actually, I think the House and Senate have been disappointing for many years now. Politicians are so timid and predictable. They avoid conflicts with lobbyists and powerful interest groups. They seem to care only about avoiding any big risks that might jeopardize their re-election.

It is incredibly rare to find any US House or Senate members who display any courage, principle or independence.

With all this in mind, I support US Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Somerville) to fill the seat long held by Sen. Ted Kennedy. Capuano, a Democrat from Somerville, must first defeat three challengers in the Democratic primary, schedule for December. The election is in Jan. 2010.

If Capuano has one trait that stands out, it IS his willingness to say what he believes and let the chips fall where they may. Yes, he seems a bit rough around the edges at times. He doesn't speak in perfect, diplomatic sentences......but, I like the idea that I can imagine Capuano asserting himself down in the Capitol Building in Washington DC. He seems unafraid -- unafraid to fight for or against any piece of legislation and unafraid to sail against the wind. Further, I doubt he's intimidated about getting in difficult conversations with his colleagues or anyone else about his positions.

I'm still learning about Capuano. When he first ran back in 1998, I had voted for Susan Tracy rather than Capuano and the other candidates seeking to represent the Eighth Congressional District formerly held by US Rep. Joseph Kennedy. I recall thinking then that Capuano, who had been mayor of Somerville, was more moderate than most of his progressive challengers.

So far, I like what Capuano is saying on the campaign trail. I thought he was far more impressive than his opponents at their first televised debate on Oct. 26th.

He was the candidate who stuck his neck out the most and gave viewers a good glimpse of who he is and what he stands for. He spoke about his position on Iraq and Afghanistan, on immigration reform and the stimulus package with a candor and directness missing in the others. Capuano raised his voice too much at times and seemed a bit too intense, but, on the other hand, he was more himself - and seemed more authentic and, for me, that was a major strength compared to the others, who were more restrained and "safe" in their responses.

I was bothered by the comments after the debate. Several commentators - including WBZ TV's Jon Keller - said that Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley had probably done the best because she said nothing to alter (hurt) her frontrunner status. Give me a break. That's what's wrong with American politics; we have commentators praising a candidate for not taking any risks, essentially. That's exactly what Coakley did. She said nothing, in my view, that was striking or impressive. She gave "boilerplate" safe answers that lacked content and spontaneity. I've seen her do the same on other occasions. She loses significant points from me for being so cautious, and, as a result, dull.

I say that, regretfully, about Coakley because, a few weeks ago, I had the view that if she impressed me, I'd probably want to support her because we so badly need more women in the House and Senate. Since then, however, I've noticed the same bland rhetoric from Coakley every time I see a clip of her or read about an appearance.

As for the two other candidates, I like Alan Khazei, the co-founder of City-Year. He made some thoughtful points at the Oct. 26th debate and seems more of an original, independent thinker than the other two. However, Khazei has not held elective office and I don't feel we should replace Ted Kennedy with a novice at this point. Stephen Pagliuca, the Celtics co-owner, simply seems ill-suited for politics. His non-stop television advertisements are so empty and boring that I find them embarrassing and humorous.

So, for me, it came down to Coakley and Capuano - and so, far, it has not been close. Maybe Coakley will surprise me in the remaining month or so before the Dec. primary, but, I doubt it.

Meanwhile, I keep liking what I read and hear about Capuano. I'm finding he is the scrappy, independent, outspoken Congressman I've heard about over the years. I've been pleased to find out that his record is more liberal than I anticipated.

I am glad that US Reps. Barney Frank and James McGovern, both liberal Democrats, support Capuano. I think very highly of Frank and McGovern, who I once worked with on a campaign. I am glad that Democratic US Reps. John Tierney and Stephen Lynch also support Capuano.

I worry a bit about Capuano because he seems to have a tendency to speak so spontaneously that he might, occasionally, say things that come out the wrong way and cause a problem later. Yet, overall, I feel this is a minor concern compared to my feelings about Capuano having the courage of his convictions

I hope Capuano pulls an upset over Martha Coakley. In 2010, we need boldness, passion and principle a lot more than we need another cautious politician unwilling to ruffle feathers.

A Different Take on "Balloon Boy" Story

It really disappoints me that the news media has received no real scrutiny or criticism for its central role in making the "balloon boy" incident into a full-blown, national news story last week.

The media's role, particularly that of cable news stations, was taken for granted in typical fashion. People have reached an unhealthy point of simply expecting news and entertainment to blur constantly, so, they have very low expectations for the media. "Anything goes," is what many feel."

In my view, the entire balloon episode should NOT have been covered as a national story. The news people on the scene had no proof the boy was in the balloon --- So, reporters, editors and producers should have restrained themselves. Of course, what we all saw, in the end, was that it didn' t matter whether the boy was in the balloon. The mere possibility was viewed as sufficient grounds to "go national" with this incident involving one boy and his family. It was ridicolous, if you ask me. There was never a story -- at least not a news story. (It was a good story for supermarket tabloids!)

I happened to turn on my television to MSNBC during the late afternoon of Thursday, Oct. 15th, and I saw the odd, fairly small, gray, helium-filled balloon that, I guess, half the world ended up seeing. I was curious, for a few minutes, to find out what was going on. After all, MSNBC must be showing this live coverage for a reason, I assumed.

A young boy might be on the ballooon and in danger, I learned. Then, seconds later, I heard, the young boy may not be on the balloon.

At that point, I stopped and asked myself: Why is MSNBC providing live, continuous coverage of the possibility - and it was only a possibility, however decent a possibility - that one boy is in that balloon and may be in danger?

My answer, to myself, was: "Well, it's all about entertainment, and I guess, we're at a point now, when -- even if a story is speculative and involves only one human being - it's still considered important enough to plug the entire country in with live, national coverage."

I do NOT accept that standard or the decision to cover the floating balloon with live, national coverage. As I watched it, I thought it was BAD news judgement -- That it was typically sensational coverage offered in the guise of news, when, it really was all entertainment. I could understand the human interest side of the story. It was unusual -- but, I felt: a) TV people should have waited to see if the boy was in the balloon, and, b) radically tamped down the coverage until then.

I kept watching, mainly to analyze the media coverage, frankly. MSNBC kept covering the "balloon boy" story - for at least 90 minutes - as if it were a MAJOR NEWS story impacting millions of people. I guess, MSNBC figured, the entertainment angle should reach millions. (I think CNN was covering it live too)

Then, of course, the boy was found in the attic of his home. MSNBC and the people interviewed seemed pretty shocked the boy in his home the whole time. I was not quite as shocked partly because the station had reported - in a downplayed way - that there was a chance the boy was not on the balloon.

Now, as the story unfolded, David Schuster, who was anchoring for MSNBC, made repeated references to how the story had attracted attention from all over the country. At one point, as the cameras showed people - either local officials or police or someone - going into the family's house to talk to the boy's parents.

"They're talking to them (the parents) about why this became an internatioal event," commented a TV reporter on camera.

I couldn't believe that comment. It disgusted me. This TV newsperson was speculating that the parents were being asked for an explanation for how this could've turned into an international event.

It's because MSNBC and other stations' coverage MADE IT AN INTERNATIONAL EVENT!!!

I cannot stand when the news media acts like it has no role in an event, which it, essentially, helped create!!

In the days that followed, this story - very predictably - stayed in the news when little tidbits kept surfacing about some unusual aspects of the "balloon boy"'s family. Yes, I can accept that perhaps some stories about this family might be interesting to some.

Hoever, my big beef with this episode was in the initial news coverage. Sorry, but, I think there is an ENORMOUS important difference between speculation and reality in terms of how the news business should report on developments. A speculative story often shouldn't even be aired at all, or, if so, it should be qualified and identified as speculative. In the case of "balloon boy," television producers blurred the lines between speculation and reality solely to "entertain" us.

Maybe, the next time, the television business can just make up a story and pretend it's real. That seems to be where things are headed.