Random Musings on June 30th

I am really tired of........former Massachusetts House Speaker Thomas Finneran whining, in essence, that he deserves to get his license to practice law back from the Board of Bar Overseers. The Board disbarred Finneran in 2007 when he pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice. In January, Finneran tried, unsuccessfully, to be pardoned by outgoing President George W. Bush. In a brief filed last Friday, Finneran sought forgiveness from the state Supreme Judicial Court for his "moment of personal weakness." Finneran lied in 2003 in federal court about his role in a controversial redistricting plan. What does Finneran have to complain about? Though he was convicted of a felony, he got 18 months of unsupervised probation, fined $25,000 and lost his pension and law license. Shortly after that, he got a chance to host a radio talk show on a respected radio station in Boston. My view? Finneran is very lucky to have not been penalized more harshly -- like many others convicted of that felony. Finneran is one of three consecutive Massachusetts House Speakers to get in trouble with the law and that only underscores the need for accountability. He does not deserve special treatment.

I am really tired of......the television media pretending it's covering news when it's indisputably producing its attempt at entertainment. My latest example: The coverage of Michael Jackson's death. Yes, I understand that Jackson was, at one time, very BIG on the music scene and his death affected many people. However, the manner in which the networks and cable television stations literally POUNCED on the Jackson story the moment he died and have stayed on it non-stop - in sensational, gossipy fashion - typifies - in the ugliest way - that in the United States, there is no longer any clear boundary between news and entertainment.

I am really tired of.....Israeli leaders and supporters of Israel complaining about the Obama administration's approach toward old issues in the Middle East being "different" and/or "harder on Israel" when, in fact, Obama is simply trying to initiate more strong, clear parameters between Israel and the Palestinians. The Obama administration has been resolute - so far - in telling Israel to stop constructing any new settlements in the occupied territories, and, unlike past administrations, so far, Obama's team has not allowed exceptions. I applaud Obama for this firmer position and hope he can stick to it despite enormous pressure ahead. It seems the only chance for change is dependent on Israel having to make concessions it has not made in the past AND that the US is the only party to make that happen.

I am really tired of......hearing so much propaganda and confusing bits of news out of Iran without hearing more of the truth. I fully realize that the Iranian regime has literally constrained the press from doing its job in recent days and that it's extremely hard to find more of the truth to share; however, it just makes me angry at the Iranian clerics in control for their crackdown on dissent and more eager to find out what's really been going on. If, in fact, Mousavi really won the election, what kind of continuing tension and discontent will exist? And, won't it worsen over time? I still believe - even with the tremendous obstacles to reporting - that we should know more than we do now.

I am really tired of .....hearing any news or gossip or speculation about Sarah Palin. Unless and until she goes through a radical transformation and becomes a knowledgeable, more articulate, thoughtful public servant after 10 or 15 years of research, hard work and personality changes, I don't think she deserves more than the tiniest bit of further attention.

I am really tired of.......former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney cropping up on television news talk shows as a leading spokesman for Republicans. Romney also does not deserve the attention. Romney ran in primary after primary last year and all kinds of people in very different states rejected him, his positions, approach and style. Why should he be invited on these talk shows? I don't think I should have to see this guy so much.

I am really tired of.....seeing references to "Jon and Kate Plus 8." I am very proud to say that I have not seen one second of that "reality show." In fact, all I know is it's a reality show about a couple and they were reportedly getting divorced? My question: Why have I seen little headlines - repeatedly - about this show that suggested it was very important and why have Jon and Kate gotten more attention than, let's say, North Korea's recent threats against the US?

I am really tired of....reporters practicing "pack journalism" so often. When a theme surfaces, it seems "The Press" cannot get out of the habit of all spouting the same line or opinion -- whether it's to say that "health care reform is in trouble" OR "People are growing concerned about the deficit" OR "People are worried about too much big government" I respect those reporters who seem to think for themselves - like Christopher Hitchens (who I often disagree with) or Bill Moyers. The same "pack journalism" is found in sportswriting - and, is, in some ways, more striking there. I love it when the conventional wisdom is proven wrong.

I am really tired of....... seeing little gossipy items in the newspaper about Tom Brady and Giselle Bundchen. Thought I am a big fan of Brady, why should we - or, they - be subjected to seeing SO many little updates on this couple's whereabouts? Yeah, they're good-looking and "successful" in their fields, but, the coverage grew tired and boring long ago.

I am really tired of..... technological efficiency being regarded as more important than content. I confess I have avoided new technology used by millions - such as cell phones, Blackberries, Twitter, Facebook or the use of text messaging. However, I'm still waiting for someone to give me any reason to rush into the habit of "texting". What is the big deal about writing a little phrase on your phone and sending it to someone? Oh, I guess, it's the enormous benefit of doing it in "real time" if you're in the middle of doing something else. Well, that doesn't sound so great to me. Why not wait until you can give the person a call and have a real human exchange?
It's painful for me to write that I believe, for many, form, method and process are more important than substance. I don't care about reading someone's "Tweet" saying: "We just saw the Grand Canyon. Fabulous!" I'd much prefer to wait until that friend returned from their trip and told me in person how they experienced the Grand Canyon.
It seems the underlying thread to new products is to allow consumers to experience something when they normally, or, naturally, couldn't otherwise -- Part of that seems good, I guess, but, the advance in products brings bad things too -- like, let's say people texting while driving OR talking on their cell phones while they're interacting with people in person. (These trends all started a downhill path with "call waiting" - which I hate, to this day! - which put efficiency and convenience ahead of natural realities and the natural "order" of things.
Then there is the consumption of huge, big-screen TVs and DVRs and every gadget imaginable. Yet, the new technology often transmits mediocre content. I'm thinking of those incredibly loud, obnoxious previews at movie theaters in the impressive "Surround Sound" -- The only problem is the movies previewed seem to get worse and worse over time. Who cares if the sound is great or they have better special effects? I'll take good characters and writing.
I see the overall tendency of people emphasizing form, speed and appearance over content in many different areas of life. I recall, at one particular job, a supervisor who seemed to care a lot more about the appearance of a chart than the subject or substance of the chart. That's not good. Maybe that's different than texting or cellphones, but, it seems related somehow to me!

Reactions to Events Unfolding in Iran

To me, one of the fascinating undercurrents of the ongoing drama in Iran is how little we've understood what's really going on there - before and during this crisis. Yes, Iran has made it very hard for any news media to keep reporting over the past nine days, but, even so, there are dimensions to this story that we remain quite clueless on.

First, Iran held their presidential election June 12th and the clerics in power decided to disregard the voters and declare incumbent Mahmoud Ahmahdinejad the winner. This incredibly glaring act of apparent corruption was so extreme and visible to the Iranian people that it sparked the enormous outpouring of protest that has gone on ever since. Sadly, to this point, reports have indicated that close to 20 people have died and many more have been injured. Mir Hossein Mousavi, the challenger who appeared to win a majority of Iranian votes, assumed the role of leader of the protesters and called for a new election to be held. Protesters agreed, and, aired their sentiments in the streets with large rallies every day. Then, over this weekend of June 20 & 21, the Iranian authorities cracked down, to a large extent, on any rallies. Significantly less people turned out on Sunday, June 21, and no one knows what lies ahead this week.

As I've followed events quite closely, I've had strong reactions to the following aspects of this story:

1) I think President Obama's position on Iran has been, basically, right most of the time. I refer to Obama's choice, over most of last week, to refrain from making comments that'd appear like the US was "intervening" or "taking sides" on the election process itself or internal matters in Iran. Rather, Obama chose to focus his most recent comments on Iran's government using violence to stop protesters. He called for Iran to halt a "violent and unjust" crackdown on dissent. Obama, typicallly, has been thoughtful, cautious and wise in choosing his words. He has said that if he expressed a more extreme US "stand" on events in Iran, that Iranian elements would likely take advantage of his remarks by using them to stir up anti-US sentiment and intensify complaints of US "meddling" in Iran's affairs. Beyond that, I feel Obama is following a principle he espoused in his Cairo speech when he spoke of the importance of nations showing mututal respect for how they choose to be governed. "No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation on another," Obama said. The President, in Cairo, seeemed ready to take a more "equal" seat at the table of nations rather than continuing a warped outlook of phony US "superiority" on these matters followed by George W. Bush.

2) To me, the US should NOT be getting involved at all with events in Iran. It is NOT the United States' business to weigh in on how Iran conducted its June 12th presidential election or the relationship between the cleric-led government and the voters. Part of our non-interventionist stance should include a position of not trying to superimpose any "old" US government tendencies to espouse support for "freedom-loving" people and that kind of rhetoric left over from the Reagan era. We do NOT know what Iranians want and some politicians should stop assuming that they want exactly what we think they should want -- freedom, democracy, and Apple Pie - and the all-American way. I can't stand they way politicians try use a situation like Iran's for their own cheap political gains. It's like running on the American flag -- but, there's no American flags in Tehran and the people are not asking President Obama to get involved. Nevertheless, some Republicans were criticizing Obama over the weekend, complaining that he was not displaying enough "leadership" or making "strong enough" statements. "The president of the United States is supposed to lead the free world, not follow it, " said Sen. Lindsay Graham, (R - S.C.) on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. "He's been timid and passive more than I would like," Graham said. Sen. John McCain, on another show, also called for Obama to make stronger comments on Iran. Other Republicans joined the chorus. They, unsurprisingly, described the Iranian crisis in black and white terms. There are the "good guys" and "bad guys" and the Americans, being the ultimate good guys, have the right to swoop down and declare the "right" side in any conflict, according to this twisted logic.

3) These Republicans are suggesting, with typical vagueness, that Obama should come out and forcefully support the protesters, but, Obama and the rest of the world does not know where events are heading in Iran. The same clerics - with Ahmadinejad - might still be in power in the next two weeks. Or, there could be protest that sparks much more violence and leads to a stalemate and heightend uncertainty and crisis in Iran. Or, the protesters' movement could just keep growing until they force some kind of new goverment to emerge - or, new arrangements for the government. To me, Obama's position seems more practical and responsible. He has to be prepared to open new diplomatic relations with whichever government in in power and discuss the tough topic of how to restrain Iran's development of its nuclear capacity.

4) A group of Republicans helped lead efforts to get the US House to pass a resolution that condemned any official crackdown by Iranian authorities against protesters. The US Senate passed a similar resolution. My reaction: I think the resolutions, if they had any effect, were counterproductive by appearing inconsistent with the President's signals. Plus, they amount to minor "meddling" in Iran. Lastly, they appear to be more about these politicians, who are preoccupied with propping themselves up - It's a sad example of US politicians showing self-absorption and cowardice at a time they should be trying to add creative ideas to help Iran and other countries deal with Iran's crisis.

5) I return to my first point. This crisis illustrates how little we know AND the extent to which Americans have been fed propaganda by George W. Bush's Administration for eight years. Let's recall that immediately after 9/11, Bush included Iran in the "axis of evil" and repeatedly attempted to "demonize" Iran, constantly attacking Iran's motives in just about every aspect of its conduct, particularly in the US War against Iraq -- a war, of course, in which the US was NOT justified to start - so, - therefore, NOT in a position to repeatedly complain about Iran's sporadic support of anti-Iraqi forces. To Bush, labeling Iran as all-evil fit into his political agenda in that part of the world (even if it didn't fit the agenda of people who lived there) The point here is that in the past week, we've seen a very different Iran - a "gray" Iran, where thousands and thousands of people are angry with the cleric-led, dictatorial government - with Ahmaddinejad's as the face of that autocratic regime.

6) One got a sense that with all the communications technology out there - from cell phones, to Twitter, to blackberries to social networking to instantaneous transmission of videos - that the world has seen a radical change in how massive change and potential revolutions might be carried out in the future. How can any government in the world get away with much before some aspect of it is communicated somehow, someway via this new technology? Yes, there are a few countries - like North Korea - where it'd still be impossible, probably, but, the scenes in Iran during the past nine days are evidence that we - as citizens of the world - are in a new era for the reporting of turmoil erupting in a country.

7) As I tried to figure out all the unreported aspects of Iran (Is Mousavi negotiating with the Guardian Council of clerics or, has he cut off communications? Is Mousavi in danger of being killed the next time he joins any public protest or would the authorities view that as too risky in terms of enraging his supporters even more, and inflaming the whole movement? Is there a split among the clerics - first reported as a possibility today - with the report that members of Rafsanjani's family were taken temporarily into custody?) I kept thinking about how OFF our country's perceptions obviously were on Iran. Then, I began to think about how little we really know about what's going on with the US war in Afghanistan and our efforts to contain Al Qaeda there and in Pakistan. In fact, I have about 50 questions on Pakistan alone: Is the country as fragile as has been reported? Was the Taliban presence not far from the capital posing the huge threats that some said? What about North Korea? They're making wild statements every few days, testing missiles and now making threatening statements against the US.

With less international coverage in newspapers and limited coverage on television news, it seems a time I'll have to find new sources of information, and the truth, around the world.

I can highly recommend Bill Moyers Journal on PBS, which airs at assorted times. Moyers and his guests discuss what's really happening and that's refreshing when you're just trying to find more of the truth - in context - about these countries, which we're heard so many misleading things about for so long.

Sox-Yanks Rivalry Is Still Exciting

I had not attended a Yankee-Red Sox game at Fenway Park since the 2004 ACLS, when I saw David Ortiz hit his "walk-off," game-winning single in Game Five.

So, on this past Tuesday night, June 9th, when my father and I took our seats near home plate, it was good to feel that old electricity in the air that comes only when these two teams meet. Even the light rain didn't diminish the anticipation and fun.

The game itself could not have unfolded more pleasingly: Josh Beckett, who often struggles a bit vs. the Bombers, shut them down for six innings. Big Papi, mired in his worst slump ever, belted a home run to centerfield. Daniel Bard, the Sox' stud rookie reliever, came in and blew the ball by the heart of the Yankee line-up to nail down the win in the 9th. The Sox won 7-0 and the Yankees got only a total of two hits.

That's a very rare thing for the Yankees to manage only two hits! We Red Sox fans, who have suffered through so many drubbings from the Yankees, know we must enjoy these "high" moments when we can.

As I sat at Fenway Tuesday, I felt a special appreciation for all the enjoyment I've gotten from watching Red Sox -Yankee games in my life, but, particularly in the past ten years or so.
So many of the games have been close, tense and exciting. Players on both teams have risen to the occasion. There really is nothing like this rivalry left in sports, in my view.

When I watched Derek Jeter swing a bat in the on-deck circle right in front of me, I thought about how I've loved rooting against this guy for so long. Jeter, in my view, is the best everyday baseball player I've ever seen. The guy has always - always - come through in the clutch -- in the biggest moments, late in the game, and, against tough pitchers. I dread it when Jeter comes to the plate, but, at the same time, his talent and cocky aura keep the game more interesting.
When I saw Jeter and Yanks' catcher Jorge Posada during the game, and then, closer Mariano Rivera, in his post-game walk in from the bullpen, it hit me that these three guys - who I've rooted against for so long - will not be around too much longer.


Don't get me wrong here. I hate the Yankees, but, the intensity of my feelings is directly related to the great players on their team and the extent of pain they've inflicted on me & all of Red Sox Nation. Their teams are always "stacked" with All-Stars -- which, automatically, makes you want them to lose. It's natural to root against a team that almost always has an advantage in talent, but, I've wondered, why do I hate the Yankees SO much? On many occasions in recent years, I've felt a certain glee upon merely learning that the Yankees lost their game on any given night. The Yankees, to me, have symbolized certain, large forces that I resist such as: the Status Quo, conventionality, bullies, having to go to work, or, paying your bills. In fact, sometimes I call the Yankees "The Bankers" because their style of winning has, at times, seemed passionless and businesslike. Maybe, I've joked, they should play the games in gray-flannelled suits.

Just recalling a few of my own personal experiences of this rivalry illustrates its uniqueness.
As a little kid, I saw Mantle and Maris play one game, but it wasn't until years later, as a Boston University student, when I witnessed a "legendary" game between these rivals.

I recall standing in front of the Cask'n Flagon on Oct. 4, 1978, a half-hour before the start of the historic, one-game playoff game between the Sox and Yankees. (later known as "The Bucky Dent Game.") Ticket scalpers were milling around the crowd. I've never held on to a four Sox tickets for my life as I did then. A friend asked me to show him the tickets. I declined, saying I didn't want to take them out of my pocket with scalpers nearby. The atmosphere was intense for every pitch of that game. I remember the "high" I felt, early in the game, when Yaz smashed a line-drive home run off Ron Guidry, the Yankees' ace, who finished with a remarkable 25-3 record that year. To me, it felt like a great omen, a message to the evil Bombers. The game went back and forth, and, then, I'll never forget watching Yaz step to the plate with two outs in the last of the ninth inning, two men on base and the Yankees ahead 5 - 4.
The whole season was on the line and it wasn't hard to fantasize about Yaz smashing a line drive hit that knocked in two runs to win the game. He so deserved that moment to cap his Red Sox career. At that moment, though, Yankee closer Rich Gossage's "live" fastball moved in on Yaz too quickly and he popped up to end the game.

We were among the last fans - literally - to leave Fenway Park that day. We sat in shock, devastated, and, I remember it really did take a LONG time to get over that game.

Years passed without the rivalry peaking as it did until Pedro Martinez arrived on the Sox. First, there was Pedro's masterpiece one-hitter - with 17 strikeouts - against the Yanks in September, 1999. It came against that great Yankee lineup that won the World Series that year. I was so frustrated that night because I was able to see only Pedro's last few strikeouts after having to drive all night, to, of all places, my then-mother-in-law's house. It still bugs me that I didn't see that Pedro game live. (Pedro was my favorite player ever)

Speaking of Pedro, he was linked to other incredible Sox-Yanks playoff moments. First, in Game 3 of the ACLS in 2003, after pitching poorly for a few innings and growing increasingly frustreated, in the top of the 4th, Pedro threw a pitch that went behind Yankee Karim Garcia's head. To some, it looked deliberate, and it stirred immediate controversy. Later, when Roger Clemens threw a pitch inside to Manny Ramirez, both benches emptied and, when Yankee coach , 72-year-old Don Zimmer lunged toward Martinez, Pedro threw Zimmer to the ground - not hard, but to avoid him. Then, back on the mound, amazingly, Pedro suddenly found his good stuff and pitched well for a couple of innings before leaving the game.

In Game 7 of that same ACLS, Pedro pitched superbly for seven innings and the Sox had a 5-3 lead and everyone expected Grady Little to take Pedro out of the game. But, No..........Little left Pedro in in the 8th, the Yankees rallied and Aaron Boone hit the game-winning home run off Tim Wakefield to win the series and dash the hopes of the Red Sox. One thing I'll always associate with that tragic loss is that, the next day at work, I attended an education conference, and many of the attendees were still feeling the after-effects. Attendees sat through a speech, and, then, at the first coffee break, a whole group of people, suddenly, began spontaneous venting toward Grady Little for his mistake the night before. It was the kind of moment when I appreciate being a Red Sox fan in New England. There are always enthusiastic fans nearby.

It felt like the cumulative "last straw" for Red Sox fans - like we'd been hit when we were already down. The only consolation: It set up things, beautifully, for 2004.

What a year that was. Nomar was, shockingly. traded. There was the signature game when Varitek started a fight with Alex Rodriguez, emptying the benches before Bill Mueller hit a game-winning home run to win it for the Sox. That was a good omen for that season.

I know some will disagree with this, but, I believe NOT ENOUGH has been made of the 2004 ACLS Red Sox comeback! I think it is one of those events that truly - truly - warranted any and all attention it received - and more. Why? First, you had the backdrop of the Sox not winning a World Series for 86 years and their longtime battles with the Yanks. Then, after the Sox went down 0 - 3, and, things looked completely hopeless, the Red Sox not only "came back" but they did so with three DRAMATIC wins in a row - first, the two extra-inning, tense, comeback games on back-to-back nights won by David Ortiz' game-winning hits, then, the heroic performance of Curt Schilling in Game Six, pitching with a bad ankle. (The "Bloody Sock" game) It culminated with the Sox, looking relaxed and cocky, blowing out the Bombers in Game 7 in New York. It was called "the greatest comeback in sports history" for all sports. I agree and want to see more books written about it.

After 2004, I worried that the rivalry's dynamics might become less exciting, but, in fact, there have been numerous terrific Sox-Yanks games in the past few years. In fact, as I write this Thursday night, I just watched the Sox win another amazinig comeback against the Pinstripes. These two teams just keep putting on a show.

So, as this 2009 season moves to summer, I look forward to the games ahead between these two teams. Even if they're anticlimatic from this point on, the Red Sox and Yankees have already provided me a lifetime of memories.

I cannot believe we've won eight games in a row against the Yankees this year. It feels too good to be true. Surely, there are more exciting struggles ahead with the Bombers. I hope so.

Obama's Non-stop Visibility Has Worked -- So Far

Barack Obama continues to be the most visible, media-accessible President ever.

Americans are not accustomed to seeing images of their President all the time; in fact, some argue that a sense of distance is what creates an aura of dignity and importance.

If you have access to a TV during the day, you see this "high-visibility" approach on display even more because one event (or more) in Obama's daily schedule is often open to the press and the cable news shows refer frequently to what's next in the President's schedule. And, while the President says he never watches the cable shows, his staff apparently pays close attention. It seems anytime the White House wants to get the word out on anything, MSNBC and/or CNN are ready to help.

Does more than a day pass when Obama is not on television? People have asked, with good reason: Is he over-exposed?

I believe he is a bit over-exposed, but, it has not hurt him - yet. In fact, Obama's accessibility has been a critical part of his success as President so far and contributes significantly to his high public approval ratings in polls.

So, after four months in office, how much longer will the Obama team stay in "campaign mode" by organizing the President's schedule in such an "open," media-friendly way?

My guess is this dynamic will continue for most of 2009 because Obama views the media coverage as essential to maintaining his popularity and achieving major accomplishments in his all-important first year. Displaying leadership during the nation's worst economic crisis since the Depression was an initial test.

Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, in March, was asked by CNN's Larry King if he was concerned about the President's "over-exposure" after Obama had just appeared in a "60 Minutes" interview and on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

"I think in this troubled time...the people expect the President to talk to them, walk them through his thinking," Emanuel told King, " - why he makes the decisions he makes, what are the tradeoffs to those decisions -- and carry them through this process."

I think Emanuel was right, particularly given Obama's strength in explaining complex policies articulately in layman's terms.

Further, it made sense for Obama, a new, young, inexperienced and first African-American President, to be visible and "hands-on" simply to establish his credibility and capabilities to the American people.

This President's team has created a genuinely modern-day White House that's truly compatible with today's technology - the Internet and all that goes with it. You know the young aides wandering the halls of the White House are using the same Blackberries, cell phones and gadgetry they used from Obama's Chicago campaign headquarters. Put it this way: It's not surprising that the "Obama machine" is still cranking out emails to supporters and contributors - with updates and pleas for support of the President's key proposals such as health care reform.

The Obama White House is a "24-7" operation that's always ready to feed the insatiable "Beast" that comprises today's news media - including the Internet, the major blogs and other new players. This White House is not caught off guard; rather, it is in a pro-active mode, always "feeding" the press.

The one common thread I see - operationally - to past administrations is, ironically, the Reagan White House during its first term. Why? That Reagan team - with James Baker as chief of staff and Michael Deaver orchestrating communications - was highly skilled in "managing" daily events and crafting "messages of the day" in disciplined fashion.

Despite its effectiveness so far, I worry a bit about this "all Obama - all the time" approach. Any leader can over-do it and risk reverberations when he or she encounters a rough patch or two in the future. When a President is the public eye too often, said Dee Dee Myers, a former press secretary in the Clinton White House, "at some point, people stop listening," she told Politico in March.

Myers suggested that Obama needed more surrogates to speak in his place some of the time. I strongly agree with her. Who are Obama's regular surrogates? We see David Axelrod, his senior advisor, occasionally, and, Emanuel once in a while, but, we should see members of the US House and Senate who articulate, thoughtful, loyal supporters of the President, speaking on his behalf a lot more.

William Arruda, a personal branding expert, was quoted in the same Politico article, as saying that if Obama remains "the face of everything that happens," it creates a risk for his Administration that when something bad occurs, people will associate it only with the President himself.

Will all this exposure in Obama's first year somehow end up hurting him more in those "down" times? Perhaps. It may compound the magnitude of negative developments. Maybe it won't matter. Either way, I do sense that this White House is quite accustomed to getting its way with media coverage so far. Think about it. It's hard to identify any sustained negative period of coverage so far, but, it's early, still. The White House has not had any real problems with leaks to the press (from within) so far.

Then again, how will this White House react when it does face more criticism? How will its senior staff behave when things go badly or they cannot control "the message"? They'll find new approaches, hopefully.

One gets the sense that the Obama administration is going "all-out" to put together several major policy victories this year. It's a "go-for-broke" strategy. They're working at a fast, furious pace - moving from one task to the next - and, they're doing so with their "star player," Barack Obama, on the court, in the game, for the full 48 minutes.