Ten Random Wishes for the New Year

Instead of New Year's Resolutions, I'm going to list just ten of my many wishes for 2010. They're more like fantasies because they're either impossible or so ridiculously improbable as to be "impossible":

1) That Jennifer Aniston will appear on no magazine covers for the entire year.

2) That the media will not cover Sarah Palin all year because they conclude she's a failed politician with no serious leadership potential. Palin will be treated like just another citizen of Alaska.

3) That former Vice President Richard Cheney will look in the mirror, get some therapy and begin a series of public admissions of wrongdoing and mistakes during his time in office. The "confession period" will culminate in Cheney publicly apologizing to President Obama for his unwarranted, outrageous criticisms and volunteering to do anything humanly possible to support Obama during the rest of his presidency.

4) That Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity will all leave their jobs, and FOX TV will cease to exist and transform itself into a serious think tank that studies the potential benefits of socialism.

5) That PBS' Bill Moyers Journal will begin to air in a prime-time slot every week - and that members of the US Congress will be required to watch the show and report on lessons they learn.

6) That President Obama will get more in touch with the deepest convictions that motivated him to become involved in national politics and will speak, with passion, about those convictions to the nation.

7) That we will learn of real anecdotes of President Obama displaying strong leadership at behind-the-scenes meetings at the White House or elsewhere. In these reports, we'll hear of Obama saying "NO" to individuals and groups, getting in conflicts, showing some passion, fighting for his convictions, and, being willing to disappoint others in doing so.

8) That the Republican Party will conclude that it should cease to exist unless it can begin advocating for some principles that relate to improving the nation. As a result, if the Party continues, its members will choose to participate in public debate and action on issues instead of solely trying to defeat every one of President Obama's his initiatives.

9) That Derek Jeter, Mark Teixeira, Alex Rodriguez and Mariano Rivera of the New York Yankees, surprisingly, all will announce their retirement from baseball before spring training in February. In a related story, the Red Sox will win another World Series title in 2010.

10) That a new alternative television network will emerge with a terrific news operation and a commitment to presenting unprecedented OPEN public debate on major issues of the day - from the war in Afghanistan to world hunger to the underlying causes of terrorism. Leading thinkers from all political persuasions will be invited to participate - especially from the Left, which has been unrepresented on mainstream media for so many decades. Among the guests on the first show, which will focus on Afghanistan, will be: Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky.

I Haven't Cared About the Tiger Woods Story

I guess I'm in a tiny minority, but, I just haven't gotten caught up in the recent Tiger Woods story. Now, it's true the media frenzy has subsided in the past ten days or so, but, any new development would probably cause it to percolate again. The coverage of Woods' extra-marital affairs - which surfaced following Tiger's car accident around Thanksgiving time - was obsessive, sensational and out-of-control.

None of that was surprising in this day and age. Particularly when a sports hero of Tiger's stature ran into these sort of personal problems. (A "perfect storm" for today's entertainment-driven media)

I grew tired of this story after the first few days. Yes, I was surprised and interested, at first, to learn about Woods having so many affairs with different women. That was unusual, but, after his multiple philandering became clear, I lost interest.

Now, I think part of this is because I'm not a Tiger Woods fan, or, even, a golf fan...but, I realized, as the saga unfolded, that there was something else affecting my sensibility around this story.

It was the context that goes with disclosure of adultery by a public figure. I realized I've learned about so many, many public figures - including many politicians - having affairs that the cumulative impact has caused me to have some burnout or indifference on this topic. Nothing surprises me anymore. I mean: What have we not heard at this point? It was hard to top President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky's escapades. Let's see, in the past year or two, we've had stories about former NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer, former US Sen. John Edwards, US Sen. John Ensign, Gov. Mark Sanford. I still recall the media's crushing coverage of Gary Hart's affairs in 1987. So, the "novelty" of the media aggressively exposing someone's affair is a thing of the past, but, other aspects of this phenomenon bother me.

I've grown tired of how the public and media so, so enjoy feasting on the flaws, problems and vulnerabilities of public people, who, after all, are human beings first and celebrities second. The issues around the adultery and marital difficulties and crises of public figures are personal. They have no impact on the rest of us. Our lives are not impacted.

Yet, when you watch the television media, in particular, report on the day-to-day developments relating to a story, or, soap opera such as Tiger Woods' recent struggles, they report the news as if it is something of such magnitude and immediacy that we all should know - we all need to know about all the details. What a farce. They should put a subtitle at the bottom of your TV screen that says: "Covering Tiger Woods' affairs helps our ratings - that's why we're doing this."

I understand that one can argue that a limited amount of reporting on this Woods story might be "justified" on some level, but, no one can convince me that most of the coverage has been necessary or natural or right. I've felt this way more and more about these adultery stories.

The problem is we've all grown accustomed to the blurring of boundaries - which, years ago, used to separate entertainment from news, and, yes, public figures' personal lives from being juxtaposed next to foreign policy developments in newscasts.

I'm always reminded of how the coverage of the OJ Simpson trial in the mid-1990s marked a turning point downward in how the media began to glaringly blur the line between news and entertainment. It began with the networks providing OJ's live Bronco chase to the minute-by-minute reporting of the trial - as if it was all-encompassing news story greatly impacting all of our well-being.

I guess the coverage of Tiger Woods has just reminded me of how disgusted I am with television news coverage in this country. I cannot believe the extent to which attempting to attract higher ratings drives everything from local weather forecasts to excessive coverage of murder stories to repeating reckless public statements of people without identifying they are false. Similarly, I cannot believe how an obsession with ratings has helped create a climate that allows figures like reactionary Glenn Beck to survive, or, succeed on TV despite Beck's irresponsibility and tasteless low standards.

OK, maybe it's a leap to go from the Tiger Woods story to discussing Glenn Beck, but, to me, we live in a media environment that disregards the truth and rewards the sensational at any cost.

The Tiger Woods story, unfortunately, will probably receive coverage for a long time, because it simply attracts ratings too high to be ignored. And, the ratings, unfortunately, are all that counts.

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.

Random Musings at Start of October

• While I don't have strong feelings about President Obama's failed plea to get the 2016 Olympics held in Chicago, I do perceive the sequence of events, unfortunately, as a metaphor for some of Obama's struggles lately. Why? As I wrote in my last blog, there is an appearance - whether accurate or not - that the Obama team has an enlarged view of the President's personal powers and charisma. The President is always out making speeches, for example, because, it seems, the White House thinks his performances make SUCH a difference that they have to keep him on that schedule. Well, when Obama's efforts to persuade the International Olympic Committee didn't lead to the desired result, to me, it's a message the White House ought to reflect on for a day - or, a week, or two. It's time for the President and his advisors to come down to Earth. It's time to get more realistic, to re-connect with real people and to look in the mirror more often. The Obama White House has seemed a bit out of touch the past few months. Maybe this Olympics episode will help in the long run.
• Talk about bad timing. Obama returns to the White House from the bad Olympics news on the same day that unemployment figures actually got worse. That's bad luck.
• I happened to watch David Letterman's weird, confessional "story" he told on his show last night about being the victim of an extortion plot relating to his affairs with women on the "Late Show" staff. He began by trying to mix humor in with the story-telling, but, I wondered immediately: "Why is he trying to be funny at all about something so serious?" When the audience kept laughing, and, clearly didn't understand that Letterman was relating the truth about an awful personal episode, Letterman didn't stop to clarify things. Rather, he kept going, taking turns between disclosing serious facts and jokes. In my view, it was fairly typical for Letterman. For a long time, I've had mixed feelings about Letterman. Sometimes, I just think he's not that funny. (His "Top Ten" list can seem over-rated, to me). Other times, he can be very funny, especially when he's relaxed and joking around with his celebrity guests, who he's refreshingly unfazed by. Still, other times, I find Letterman seems to have sort of a mean streak. He sometimes picks on people. For example, and some will disagree, I'm sure, but, when Joaquin Phoenix was a guest on his show earlier this year and behaved very strangely, acting completely unresponsive to Dave, Letterman turned on Phoenix -- big-time and took some shots at him, and, did nothing to stop the avalanche of criticism leveled at Phoenix in the days afterward. Now, I admit Phoenix wasn't a cooperative guest, but, we never found out why he acted as he did. (Was it part of a practical joke? Was he in an altered state for some reason?) Whatever it was, I didn't like the way Letterman treated Phoenix -- and I don't like it when he picks on people when they're down. He's got a glib, negative aura sometimes -- and acts like he's a bit "above" others. Well, maybe this recent personal difficulty will humble him a bit - in a good way.
• I am not a resident of Boston, but, I find it amazing that incumbent Mayor Tom Menino is even allowed to run for a fifth term. I think it's wrong. I think there should be a term limit for the mayor - at perhaps three. While I respect a few things about Menino, (like his resilience) he is not the least bit inspirational and displays no imagination in his vision or leadership for Boston. I'd like to see a mayor more like Kevin White - the EARLY Kevin White, that is, before his ethics spiraled downward as he continued in office for a third and fourth term. You see? (White should've been limited in terms too). Menino is a tremendous favorite to win re-election in Nov.
• Speaking of elections in Massachusetts, I am trying to gather information on candidates to replace the late US Sen Edward Kennedy. I'm considering Martha Coakley and Michael Capuano right now. I badly want a woman to become a US senator from this state and I like Coakley, but, she seems a bit centrist and cautious to me. Capuano, who has always seemed a bit rough on the edges; nevertheless, seems to have retained a scrappiness that I admire during his time in Congress. I was struck by Barney Frank's early endorsement of Capuano. I've always liked Frank and if he's endorsing Capuano, that tells me that Barney appreciates Capuano fighting for progressive positions in Congress, and, I must say, Capuano strikes me as being unafraid to take on tough adversaries. We'll see.
• I remain bothered that President Obama does not appear to have a better relationship with members of the US Congress - the House and the Senate. I think Speaker Nancy Pelosi has done him few favors. Harry Reid offers little. So, who is Obama's staff person who acts as his main liaison to Congress? I don't know the name or names. I do know that I've read repeatedly about his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, having many "important" meetings with members of Congress - and, that worries me. I know Emanuel, a former Congressman, has many contacts and institutional knowledge, but, I've also read that Emanuel is disliked by many House members, and, that he's an arrogant guy with a style that rubs many the wrong way. So, wouldn't it make sense for Obama to tell Emanuel to spend less time worrying about Congress (He does have a lot to do already) and find some, excellent, high-profile, respected, tough, experienced person to serve as his new liaison to Congress?" I'd say so -- He should do something to build new bridges there.

OK, I'm Convinced: Obama Is Badly "Over-Exposed"

Even I am getting sick of seeing President Obama so much on television and I'm an enthusiastic Obama supporter.

It's just not natural to see and hear a President as often as we've seen this guy! He's held press "availabilities" with dizzying frequency. Many of his speeches or "town hall forums" have been aired live or highlighted on television. Obama has hosted more press conferences than his predecessors after nine months. And, he's appeared on "60 Minutes" twice, along with Letterman and Leno.

What makes this more striking is the extent to which Obama has been seen in "campaign-mode" - as he does all this speechifying. Why is he still acting like he's in a campaign on so many occasions during his first year as President? I'm tired of seeing Obama making "pitches" - whether for the stimulus package or health care reform . We saw him in that role for his long presidential campaign; now, we need to see Obama take action and make decisions more than make "pleas" for support.

It's time for Obama to take breaks from talking publicly. The constant public "performing" has been hurting him more than helping, I think. Mr. President: How about just working in the White House a bit more often? Maybe lingering in the Oval Office would help in more ways than one. Perhaps you and your staff can show more faith that things will be OK - even if you're not out trying to "sell" your policies.

For quite a while, I thought Obama's "high-visibility" approach made some sense. Obama had walked into an incredible economic crisis. He was new, young - and the nation's first black President. It seemed a good idea to be visible, open and attempting to become more familiar to the American people. I also bought the argument that it was important to keep Obama's "favorability" high during the first months of his first year, when, clearly, his Administration is trying to get so much accomplished when their chances for legislation are highest. I wrote about this in a June 2nd blog, in which I noted that this approach had worked "so far," but I worried then that, in the long term, it could have a down side.

Well, during the summer - which was a poor one for Obama - I began to feel the negatives of the high-visibility approach were outweighing the positives.

Now, I'm afraid this White House may be disturbingly out of touch about the impact and role of the President's appearances. It's as if Obama's advisors view Obama as a "rock star" with a golden touch -- and the only one who can represent the Administration.

Howard Fineman, in his Sept. 26th column in Newsweek, argued that the Obama team should consider the limited value of visibility (alone) for the President. Fineman wrote:

"The president's problem isn't that he's too visible; it's the lack of content in what he says when he keeps showing up on the tube. Obama can seem a mite too impressed with his own aura, as if his presence on the stage is the Answer...."

In addition, some related trends have emerged as problems for the President:

First, on a number of occasions, Obama has attracted considerable criticism - sometimes from Republicans or policy critics - and been far too slow to respond to it. I felt this happened most glaringly during the summer of constant attacks on the Obama health care reform efforts. One reason: Obama has lacked allies and surrogates - inside and outside of Congress - who have his back and will passionately support him whenever asked, on short notice.

Second, it seems Obama has not shown - enough - that he has a backbone. That he has deep conviction about certain priorities. That he can and will say "No" more to groups, individuals and other leaders. If he's showing this tendency exclusively in private, then his staff should leak anecdotes that give us a glimpse of it.

Third, Obama talks so much to us that when he doesn't follow through on something, it raises questions about how seriously he takes his own words and the extent to which he thinks we take his words seriously. (He's characterized his support for the "public option" in a variety of ways on different occasions and appeared weaker than necessary). Sometimes, I wonder if he thinks it matters, or, if he can say anything and still talk his way out of it - and, this raises questions about the strength of his own beliefs).

Fourth, Obama, simply, needs to show he's in charge more. Too often, he's been explaining topics to us instead of telling us about tough decisions he's made and what plans he's implementing, going forward - regardless of the opposition. To me, a rare example when President Obama did just that was his decision to not install an anti-missile system in eastern Europe. Obama had said he'd conduct a review of this matter, and his announcement pleased the Russians and prompted criticism from Republicans, but, he appeared to have resolve about it, sure and steady.

While, obviously, none of us know what goes on behind closed doors in the White House, after nine months, you can get a sense of certain dynamics and speculate based on limited observations. Somehow, Obama and his people began placing too much emphasis on using Obama's outstanding talents, speaking, explaining and inspiring and seemed to place too little on his need to lead in other ways daily - to display leadership to House and Senate members, other constituencies, to tap the right talent in his closest staff and oversee and make demands on his Cabinet secretaries.

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, in a Sept. 29th piece, spoke to this from another perspective. Cohen's introduction said:

"Sooner or later it is going to occur to Barack Obama that he is the president of the United States. As of yet, though, he does not act that way, appearing promiscuously on television and granting interviews like the presidential candidate he no longer is. The election has been held, but the campaign goes on. The candidate has yet to become commander-in-chief...."

Cohen's line prompted me to reexamine all of Obama's "campaigning" for health care reform.

One can question the value of the events because they clearly have not swayed many people toward supporting Obama's proposed reforms, but perhaps another lesson for the White House is that they should have invested more time back in the White House developing the content, strategy and arguments they planned to use in presenting their reform proposals AND the steps they'd follow to keep Congress operating under a tighter framework.

If, in fact, the Obama team were to fail in its quest to win approval for a significant health care reform package, it'd probably mean there were flaws in the legislation and the early assessments of what could be won, or not with Congress -- but, surely, the frequency or drama surrounding Obama's performances on center stage will not be viewed as pivotal, I don't think.

I agree with Cohen. It's time for Obama and his advisors to focus more on how the President his leading, or, not leading - - and try to shore up existing weaknesses.

The irony is that if Obama stayed in the White House more and reduced his appearances, the focus of news coverage might shift more to content and his execution of difficult actions, tough policy choices and Obama's leading other important people and groups.

The Obama White House needs to cultivate media attention to these other aspects of Obama's leadership. He should not have to "campaign" so much now. He's the President, and, if he acts more like he's in control and comfortable using his power, the media, and then the public, will notice the difference.

In Praise of Jimmy Carter's Candor on Racism

I applaud Jimmy Carter for speaking his mind this week about the role of race in some of the disturbing, extremist reactions to President Barack Obama recently. Carter made his comments after US Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst in the middle of Obama's recent health care speech to a joint session of the US Congress. Wilson, a South Carolina Republican, shouted "You lie" at Obama, jarring his colleagues and those of us watching on television. Wilson's behavior was VERY unusual, and, it followed, in disturbing fashion, a summer when Obama's appearances had attracted a variety of other negative, occasionally bizarre responses from some individuals in his audiences.

"I think it's based on racism," Carter said, in reply to a question during an event at his Carter Center in Atlanta. "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."
Carter also said that Wilson's outburst was part of a troubling trend of harsh criticisms directed at Obama by demonstrators - including individuals who have compared Obama to Nazi leaders.
"Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care," Carter said. "It's deeper than that."

Carter said what many US senators and Representatives are afraid to say. In fact, afterward, a few Democrats went out of their way to distance themselves immediately from the former president's comments. Those Democratic politicians quoted were totally unconvincing in trying to claim anti-Obama reactions were innocent and issue-driven.

It seems fairly obvious there is "an element" of Obama critics who are motivated by race. I wish more of our elected leaders - Republicans and Democrats - were willing to identify these individuals for who they are. It'd be nice if they had the courage and principle to complain about racist comments or behavior. Instead, most politicians these days avoid any sensitive issues -- so, I guess it's unsurprising they're silent about racism.

Well, I'm tired of it. I wish more people would follow Jimmy Carter's lead. Why the hell were some white individuals showing up with deplorable, hateful messages on posters at some Obama events on health care this summer? Why are right-wing, reckless, obnoxious radio and
television talk show hosts so harshly and crudely ripping President Obama non-stop -- no matter what he's actually doing in office?

We are living in a strange time when it comes to what's tolerated or not. (I wrote about this last week). I criticized TV reactionary Glenn Beck, who had called President Obama " a racist" on a television talk show. Well, this week, Time Magazine decided to put Glenn Beck on its cover. Typical. Today's media organizations - like Time - make their decisions on the entertainment level or ratings potential of a topic rather than whether it's newsworthy, in context or deserves attention at all. Beck does NOT deserve any attention - or, a talk show.

My reaction, when I heard of former President Carter's quote was: "It's about time someone of stature spoke up about this."

I understand that Obama and his advisors do not want to raise the issue of race. Imagine if Obama, himself, argued that racism was a factor in his struggle to increase support for one of his positions or actions. He'd receive overwhelming criticism. HOWEVER, I do not accept the silence of everyone else, particularly elected officials and those with influence and power in all sectors of society who could impact the dialogue on race relations.

I was glad to read a terrific Sept. 13th piece by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who ripped into US Rep. Joe Wilson for his outburst during Obama's speech. Dowd, like Jimmy Carter, waded right into the topic of race, and, took it further by raising questions about Wilson's possible motivations and his record on race-related matters.

Consider this excerpt from Dowd's column:

"...The congressman, we learned, belonged to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, led a 2000 campaign to keep the Confederate flag waving above South Carolina's state Capitol and denounced as a "smear" the true claim of a black woman that she was the daughter of Strom Thurmond, the '48 segregationist candidate for president. Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber."
Then, Dowd commented further:

"I've been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer -- the frantic efforts to paint our first black president as the Other, a foreigner, socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi; a cad who would snuff old people; a snake who would indoctrinate kids -- had much to do with race........But Wilson's shocking disrespect for the office of the president -- no Democrat ever shouted "liar" at W. when he was hawking a false case for war in Iraq -- convinced me: Some people just can't believe a black man is president and will never accept it....."

Dowd is right on the money. I wish it weren't so, but, I feel that in the past couple of months, we're seeing some more blatant signs of racism against Obama. You can see it in the surprising disgust or venom that shows up in negative comments of Obama critics.

The recent racial dynamics confronting Obama remind me of the obstacles he overcame during the 2008 presidential campaign. I still believe people have overlooked the extent to which Obama had to rise above the constant presence of racism in both the primary and general election campaign. I recall - during Obama's battle vs. Hillary Clinton - how Bill Clinton was often assigned to campaign aggressively for white votes in little rural towns of certain states where racism remained a large factor. I recall how, in my home state of Massachusetts, Hillary won overwhelming margins of victory against Obama in many medium-sized, blue-collar cities where one would have expected Obama to do much better. Race was an important factor, in my view. Then, of course, there were Democratic primaries in states like Kentucky and West Virgina - where Hillary was ahead by 30 points weeks before the event, remained ahead by that margin, and, then, won by the same whopping margin. Many voters there, clearly, had made up their minds about Obama and were not predisposed to change. I wonder why.

And, who can forget some of the despicable tactics used by John McCain and Sarah Palin in the general election campaign against Obama. I can recall Palin, a hopeless candidate who deserved far tougher scrutiny of her own record, trying in repeated appearances, to portray Obama as "an outsider" who couldn't be trusted. Indeed, though I expected even worse, McCain and Palin did little to avoid rhetoric that stirred anxieties about race.

As I observe Obama's presidency, I will never forget the obstacles he overcame to win the election. I still believe that many Americans give him a smaller margin for error as President because he is black. Obama faces more challenges and constraints all the time due to his race. Let's hope that when a minority of his critics display racial prejudice, that others will speak up - like Jimmy Carter did - and help discourage others from doing the same thing.

It's Time for People to Speak Out Against Right-wing Extremism

How did people in this country get so passive and indifferent about crazy things said or done by extreme right-wingers?

What does it take for someone to stand up and say "Hey, that guy just said something unacceptable to me. I object to it and I want to help stop that person from repeating that crap" ?

I ask this in response to some of the extreme, repulsive remarks or actions by right-wing individuals aimed at President Obama during the past month or two. The ratings-driven television news media has chosen to cover these rants as "news" and failed to present them as the irresponsible acts they are. (The Right, historically, takes advantage of the superficial, entertainment-dominated news the most often).

There are too many examples to cover, but, here are a few that drew my attention:

1) First, the continuing efforts of a tiny, tiny minority of people to raise questions about whether President Obama was born in the United States -- the so-called "birthers" - who, for some puzzling reason, have continued to get covered by the national media. There's NOTHING to the questions - so, there should be NO more stories. Period.

2) The people who inexcusably carried guns outside town hall forum events where Obama spoke on a few occasions this summer. This, apparently, was some sort of sick way of drawing attention and making a point, I guess. I just know I heard too small an outcry of protest about this display of guns. It was a low moment that should've been rejected and criticized more harshly.

3) The ugly, unacceptable comments made by right-wing TV talk show host, Glenn Beck.

4) The ludicrous, incredibly disturbing attention paid to an initially very tiny protest of concern about President Obama's remarks made to the nations' schoolchildren on Sept. 8th. This mushroomed into a large story, thanks to the media coverage. (More on this in a second).

Right-wing radio and TV talk show hosts know, all too well, what drives the nation's news media in 2009: It's ENTERTAINMENT and that means whatever constitutes entertainment - even it the content is false, misleading, distorted or reckless. These entertainers who pretend to be "journalists" know that in this Internet-dominated news arena, the consumers of information have a VERY short attention span. So, if one of them makes an off-the-cuff remark that's inaccurate or offends some group, that's OK, he rationalizes. The specifics will be "forgotten" or will fade a few hours later -- and the initial impact is what counts, anyway.

Well, when I was growing up, it was NOT enough to simply be "entertaining." A news organization felt obligated to have at least some credibility and responsibility. It attempted to show respect and decency for other people in its coverage. These standards don't apply in 2009.

So, I guess this helps explain how an idiot like Glenn Beck can somehow use a fraudulent "shock-jock" formula to attract attention, get a show, and attract ratings. However, when Beck back in late July, called President Obama "a racist" without providing any substantiation, I didn't accept that - and I don't accept that he should even have a show now. Do you recall what he said?

Beck, in a July 28th appearance on Fox and Friends, said that Obama "had a deep-seated hatred of white people or the white culture." He added: "I'm not saying that he doesn't like white people. I'm saying that he has a problem. This guy, is, I believe, a racist.."

Then, Beck's comment was circulated and discussed, when it should have been condemned and dismissed instantaneously. I think he should've been fired for such an off-base, ugly, unacceptable remark ---particularly when he made it so deliberately - with his eyes wide open.

While that Beck comment was "off-the-charts BAD," some of his right-wing peers - Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham and Bill O'Reilly, to name only a few examples - tend to routinely attack Obama in excessive, hysterical fashion. Often, these or other right-wing hosts describe "liberals" as if they're dangerous inhabitants of another planet. A number have continued calling Obama or his policies "socialist" even though it's an embarrassingly FALSE label. Is anyone intelligent listening out there? Do members of the audience know or care if this crap is spouted all day long?

These and other right-wing hosts use the most juvenile, stupid approaches to draw attention: Name-calling, exaggerating, lying, distorting, sensationalizing. They cleverly attach their extreme language to real-life news and strands of truth or reality in order to create an appearance of relevance when, in fact, much of their content is so false or out of context that it's serves no good purpose.

Consider the fuss that was made over Obama's remarks to school children on Sept. 8th.

First, some conservative got all up tight about a draft of the plans for Obama's remarks included a proposed "lesson plan" that made a reference to giving students a chance to volunteer ideas or ways to "help the President." It was clear to most that there was no bad intent here -- no effort to score political points; but, soon, right-wingers were spreading claims that Obama was trying to "indoctrinate" children and "promote his agenda" in an inappropriate way. Soon, news stories covering these unsubstantiated claims, fears and speculation began multiplying and a controversy was created out of nothing.

A few public officials actually stirred the pot, including Jim Greer, the Republican Party chairman in Florida, who was said he "was appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread Presiden Obama's socialist ideology." Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who reportedly has presidential aspirations, said the thought Obama's planned remarks were "disruptive."

The White House tried to reassure people the President's remarks were aimed at inspiring kids to be responsible, but, the story was off to the races. I think it was largely a "media-created" episode. I find it hard to believe there were thousands of "concerned parents" out there -- or, at least as many "concerned parents" as suggested by news accounts. For instance, the New York Times ran a Page One story on Sept. 4th headlined: "Obama's Plan for School Talk Ignites a Revolt," but, while the article reported anecdotal responses of concern or protest from citizens, it cited no evidence that large numbers of Americans had been impacted at all by this matter.

More importantly, when Obama actually spoke on Sept. 8th, his remarks were without controversy or politics; rather, his statement was what his advisors had promised -- a pitch to students about the importance of taking responsibility. Obama did a great job, by the way.

After I watched Obama on the 8th, my wish was that all the right-wing talk shows be held accountable for their false, irresponsible claims about Obama's speech. The entire episode illustrated how ridiculous the world of talk shows and media have become. Of course, we've seen evidence of this during public debate over health care reform too.

Right-wingers have leveled many wild, inaccurate charges and criticisms at President Obama as a way to hurt his chances to win a victory over health care. Perhaps the worst claim - taken up by former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin - that, under Obama's plan, there would be "death panels" that would decide the fate of senior citizens at the end of their lives.

President Obama, in his Sept. 9th speech to a joint session of Congress, finally confronted this bluntly by saying the following.

"Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claims, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It's a lie, plain and simple."

Perhaps Obama learned a lesson about the need to respond far more directly and immediately in simple language that ensure everyone will at least hear the truth. (I think one unfortunate reality is that a segment of the right-wing "attacks" on Obama is due to an undercurrent of racism. The prejudice is manifested in negative or hateful rhetoric that, on the surface, targets other Obama-related topics).

In today's world covered by entertainment-driven media, leaders - including President Obama - must be swift and clear about clarifying misunderstandings and lies.

It's time the rest of us did our part to help label and reject irresponsible comments from the Right. Speak up and put an end to irresponsible, right-wing extremism !!

Can Obama Still Get Meaningful Health Care Reform?

Surely, Barack Obama didn't expect to be stuck in such an awful quagmire over health care reform as he heads into Labor Day weekend in his first year as President. He expected a hard battle, but, probably, not this nightmare.

Much of the resistance goes with the territory. There are too many powerful special interests in health care that can block attempted change at every corner. However, Obama and his team have made the prospects for genuine, large-scale reform much less likely than they had to be. For a President who has excelled in communicating with the public, Obama often has appeared vague and indecisive. He has appeared cautious and passive rather than bold and strong.

It has been extremely difficult to follow the story of health care reform. That's partly due to the fact that so much of the "action" of this story goes on behind the scenes, beneath the radar. It involves lobbying and more lobbying. It involves money and influence. It involves political muscling and dealmaking. What information bubbles to the surface is all that we, the citizens, see, and, usually, it's an incredibly incomplete picture. The typically flawed news reporting on this issue has only increased the murkiness.

Despite this incomplete picture and my limited knowledge of health care policy, I'll attempt to list some central factors that have impacted the evolution of this policy drama.

1. Obama's strategic decision to "let the Congress shape the legislation" has backfired quite a bit. On the one hand, it seemed understandable that Obama didn't want to repeat the Clintons' mistake of attempting to develop a reform package from inside the White House. Obama wanted Congress to help shape, and, later, "own" the product of its work. However, Obama has chosen to avoid asserting his own views and priorities on the significant aspects of health care reform for far too long. This has made him appear weak and directionless on an issue that he harped on - with authority and principle - as a candidate in 2008. Plus, Obama's choice to stay above the fray has allowed the debate to be unnecessarily aimless, unfocused, noisy, reckless, distracted, and, often, unpleasant or obnoxious. The Republicans, the Party of "No" have been allowed to create mischief on a near-daily basis -- partly as a result of the White House "letting the Congress shape the legislation." The Republicans' only mission is to defeat Obama.

2. Obama has failed to explain why we have to have health care reform. He has failed to identify his own largest reasons. Is it to help the uninsured - particularly those millions of people of low or moderate income? If so, one cannot easily conclude this from Obama's town hall forums. Yes, he mentions it, but he mentions A LOT of things and that's the problem. He has desparately needed a "mantra" - a rallying cry -- a few top goals to group together in a slogan or argument.

3. Obama has not clearly identified his allies and opponents. Who is he fighting for? Against? I'm sure he'd reply he's helping "the American people," but, again, his rhetoric has not been clear, strong and focused in that regard. Has he been railing (enough) against HMOs or the pharmaceutical industry? I don't think so. He speaks in generalities about the system, but, surely, he knows, as a former community organizer and communicator, his Administration's argument would be more compelling if it were urging us to stop some opposing force or industry. It helps to rally people against a big, bad target or "enemy."

4. Isn't it a sign of trouble that several of Obama's largest informal "allies" for reform are the most "mainstream" health care entities imaginable -- i.e. the pharmaceutical industry, the AMA, (the largest physicians' organization) or, hospitals? Recently, according to an original, thorough article by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone on health care reform, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America "...announced that the industry would contribute an estimated $150 million to campaign for Obamacare..." (www.rollingstone.com/issue1086) Taibbi details many troubling aspects of the impact of behind-the-scenes lobbying on the ongoing "debate" in Congress.

5. Obama and his team have done a particularly poor job trying to explain "the public option." In a year when the public has grown wary and hostile toward the idea of additional federal government intervention, it became even more important for the Administration to explain "the public option" very clearly, carefully, and patiently. One priority should've been to emphasize that it will NOT result in a harmful intrusion by the government, but, rather, a way of ensuring people get their choice of coverage. Obama and his team have been far too casual about showing the American people how this reform effort will not bankrupt us by creating tremendous new deficits. They'll have to do this in the weeks ahead if they are to succeed.

6. In a closely related way, the Obama team has never shown a sufficient acknowledgement that, in a year of the economic stimulus package - a measure with results that've been hard to see and measure - of course, the public would be skeptical of the federal government playing a much greater role in the provision of health care.

7. There has been a dramatic shortage of strong "surrogates" speaking in support of the Obama Administration's efforts. This has been a weakness that characterized the period before the vote on the stimulus too. Why do I hear so much about Republicans' reactions to every little development on health care without seeing and hearing showings of strong support and rhetoric from Obama supporters? I'm referring, in particular, to Democratic US senators and Democratic US House members, who have been remarkably silent. I don't think that's a coincidence. Many Congressmen base their behavior solely on protecting their own interests. They are, unfortunately, not generally the least bit courageous or bold. They avoid risks at all costs. Too often, this story has presented Obama on one side -- speaking in generalities -- and a wide array of critics on the other side who are all too willing to spout any reckless, irresponsible criticism, attack or distracting remark at the Obama side. Worsening matters is that the Republican Party has become a tiny group of politicians unwilling to engage in thoughtful debate on anything. They should be irrelevant, but, they've had more success at attracting media coverage than their quiet, passive, unimpressive counterparts -- even though the Democrats outnumber them by a tremendous margin and possess strategic advantages.

8. While I mention the failings of Democrats, I must stress that their collective effort was obviously much more needed given the timing that Obama has chosen for this. Obama, understandably, felt if he had a shot at health care, it probably had to come in his first year - after his historic victory and the peaking of good will from the American people. Yet, after he had to grapple with the economic crisis non-stop in his early months, he lost some key momentum and credibility. He needed - but, received very little - outspoken support from Democratic allies to back him up in the uphill - "against-the-wind" effort to reform health care. I believe that even if Obama gets a watered-down bill in 2009, he deserves at least some credit for choosing to take this issue on in a time of tremendous economic stress for the country.

9. Obama seems to have adopted an approach aimed at alienating as few people as possible. He seems to want it both ways. On occasion, he'll speak of the big changes needed, but, at the same time, he fails to identify - specifically - who and what players and entities within the system must change the way they do business. For a "populist" sort of argument, Obama sure hasn't sounded like a populist. A populist has to rally people against something or someone mistreating or hurting them -- whether it's Big Business or whoever. I have not hear Obama rail against any of the "bad players" in the health care world in a way that's as compelling as it could be. I suspect that's because the Obama team has been "working with" some major players in health care AND Obama has tried to keep too many parties in the arena happy, when, in fact, a leader of a reform effort CANNOT keep pleasing everyone; in fact, if that leader is generating momentum, he or she will probably made some real enemies and created deep anger and tension and conflict. How can a major reform drive amount to much WITHOUT that kind of opposition or side-effects?

10. The Obama team has not presented good, clear arguments even to me - and I'm an enthusiastic Obama supporter. I still receive emails from the Obama grassroots group, "Organizing for America" and what I've noticed is the same general presentation that lacks an edge. (They fail to identify often enough what, specifically, needs to be replaced or changed!) If the Obama people - both in the White House and those leading the Obama grass roots machine - have not shared a clear "rallying cry" that has captured my attention, that's a bad sign.

Don't get me wrong. I support major health care reform and I hope the Obama administration will force through as strong a bill as possible. I just want Obama to stand up and show more leadership on this issue - NOW, before it's too late.

Kennedy Endorsement of Obama Was Special

As US Sen. Edward Kennedy struggles to hang on in his battle with cancer, I've thought back on one of his better days last year. For me, it became perhaps the most memorable moment of Ted Kennedy's career.

It was the moment when Teddy chose to endorse Barack Obama early in Obama's 2008 presidential primary campaign against Hillary Clinton. Obama had just won the South Carolina primary decisively on Jan. 26th, but he was still relatively unknown nationally and faced a steep, uphill fight against Clinton on Super Tuesday. At that moment, he needed all the help he could get - and the Kennedys, Ted and his niece, Caroline, stepped forward.

Ted Kennedy's endorsement "piggy-backed" his niece Caroline's dramatic endorsement of Obama in an op-ed piece in the Jan. 27, 2008 edition of the New York Times. Caroline wrote that Obama could inspire people the way her father had back in the 1960s.

The next day, Jan. 28th, Caroline and Ted Kennedy appeared with Obama at American University in Washington DC, and, Ted didn't just go through the motions in his remarks. He gave a fiery speech that passionately rebutted each of the misleading claims Clinton had been making about Obama. Clinton had been getting away with distortions hurled at Obama, but, on this day, Kennedy took her on and knocked down her false claims. In doing so, Kennedy threw his experience, clout and family name behind Obama with full force at a moment when Obama truly needed it.

Kennedy said Obama was "ready to be President on Day One" -- dismissing Clinton's charge that Obama was inexperienced. Kennedy said "from the beginning, he (Obama) opposed the war in Iraq. And let no one deny that truth..." (Clinton had suggested Obama's opposition was less pure)

Kennedy told the crowd that Obama represented "a new era" and a rejection of "old politics."

I recall, vividly, watching Kennedy's remarks. As an Obama supporter, I was so thrilled. I knew how desparately Obama needed a boost right then and this was like a dream come true. At that time, Clinton had more endorsements in the US House and Senate than Obama, and, more strikingly, she had FAR greater name recognition in the large states at stake in Super Tuesday. Indeed, one could sense that if Obama lost badly to Clinton on Super Tuesday, his candidacy would likely spiral downward. The Kennedys' move stood WAY out in the period before Super Tuesday and attracted a wave of positive media coverage over a number of days.

Hillary and Bill Clinton were jarred by Kennedy's move. Others were surprised, particularly because Kennedy had acted swiftly without signalling his intentions. The Clintons felt they had done much to help Teddy in the past. At the same time, Kennedy reportedly was genuinely upset by Clinton campaign tactics, including using the race card in South Carolina. To me, the fact that Kennedy made the choice in spite of his longstanding relationship with the Clintons made it all sweeter.

Do you remember how vulnerable Obama was at that moment? I doubt it because I've discussed this with many people who had forgotten the dynamics before Super Tuesday. Obama was a newcomer. He was viewed as young, inexperienced and untested. And, let's not forget: He was the nation's first, serious black candidate with a chance to win the presidency - a very different candidate than Jesse Jackson was in 1984 or 1988.

Obama had to thread the needle on Super Tuesday - i.e. win just enough states to minimize the impact of Hillary winning most of the largest states. Yet, without Ted Kennedy's endorsement and a few other key breaks, Obama might have never pulled it off.

Obama ended up winning 13 states on Super Tuesday while Clinton won eight. Yet, to this day, I don't think enough emphasis has been placed on the unlikelihood of how he did this. Many of his 13 states held caucuses - for which the Obama team had outorganized the Clinton campaign. Somehow, some way, the media - which was obsessed, as always, with the delegate totals, zero-ed in on Obama's tiny delegate lead over Clinton after Super Tuesday - even though she had won California, New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts. Even in these big states he lost, Obama won many delegates in districts his campaign had targeted, thus lessening the damage.

Then, later, even after Hillary won primaries in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, Obama hung on by solidifying support among "super-delegates" and holding on to delegates he'd won in caucuses.

In the end, Obama barely beat Clinton. He won because of his margin among delegates and because he gradually convinced US senators and House members, who are super delegates, to support him rather than Clinton.

Would Obama have pulled it off without that critical endorsement of Ted Kennedy back in late January? Probably.....but, I'd still argue that Teddy's endorsement was a pivotal moment in what was the most exciting presidential primary campaign of my life other than perhaps the 1968 Democratic race.

Endorsements usually do not carry the same weight they used to in all kinds of political campaigns; however, I will never forget the way Ted Kennedy came through in the clutch for Barack Obama by passionately endorsing him in early 2008.