Obama, the Decisionmaker, Remains an Enigma

How does President Obama make decisions? How does he lead when he is behind closed doors at the White House?

Though we've seen a lot of Obama before various audiences for two years, we've learned very little about how he works with those around him. We know little about his day-to-day style and approach toward leadership, management and organization. This missing information is even more intriguing given that this President - in six short weeks - has already made many far-reaching decisions to address our economic crisis and just proposed a bold, ambitious, enormous FY 2010 budget that charts an alternative course for the country.

Who does he talk to about all these moves he's making? How does he process and prioritize information? How does he try to control meetings? Who influences him the most?

We can deduce certain things from Obama's well-organized, disciplined presidential campaign. He found excellent people to run his campaign and he seemed comfortable delegating large, demanding pieces of it to them. It seemed he stuck to the "big picture" and his performance on the campaign trail.

We've read reports that Obama likes to hear arguments made at meetings before displaying a skill at synthesizing the salient points that must be addressed. I wonder how he runs other kinds of meetings when he must declare quickly what he needs from those in the room.

I am very curious how Obama interacts with his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, for instance. We've heard all about Emanuel's big ego, confrontational style and ability to say "No." I'm curious how and when Obama says "No" to Emanuel. In what way does he regularly tell Emanuel what he wants him to do and how does he hold Emanuel accountable?

I'd like to know how Obama gets what he wants from Larry Summers, Hillary Clinton or an array of others on his staff or in his Cabinet. What roles has Obama worked out for David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, both important advisors from Chicago days?

Obama comes across as a "big picture" thinker who likely attempts to set the large goals and strategy while leaving many details to his staff. If so, how, exactly, does he go about leaving matters to the discretion of others, including his Cabinet secretaries? I wonder if he trusts those under him so much that things might be a bit "loosey-goosey" in his Administration. Who knows?

I think it's fair to say that, overall, the details about these dynamics are very important in determining how successful a President can be over four or eight years. If Obama is regularly interested in hearing contrasting viewpoints on major issues, that alone could influence his way of defining his role and positions. Does his White House team ensure internal debate on matters to be decided?

How does Obama handle conflict and dissent? Who among his top aides really challenges him when they believe he is wrong? How does Obama then treat those individuals?

How Obama deals with Secreatry of State Clinton may be a fascinating example of how the President exercises leadership. He seems comfortable delegating to a large extent, but, how will he handle his first genuine disagreement with Clinton over a foreign policy matter? So far, they seem on the same page about early efforts to explore a new diplomatic relations with Iran. I'd love to hear their conversations. I guess I want to hear Hillary show the appropriate deference to the President. Maybe she does. Who knows?

There was one very sketchy news report weeks ago that seemed to suggest that one night, during the debate over the stimulus bill, Obama invited some House Democrats to the White House and voiced dissatisfaction with their approach in the public debate at the time. Either way, I'd like to hear a few more anecdotes like this - that provide at least a glimpse of Obama's leadership from inside the White House.

The President has been on television more steadily than almost any President I can recall; however, I think the majority of those appearances make sense because one can argue that as a new, young, inexperienced President, it's important for Obama to share his handling of the economic crisis - both to inform people and to display his skills as a means of reassurance.

Obama projects an aura of confidence and energy that, I think, helps people feel he's on top of things. If he would, occasionally, give people glimpses of how he leads and decides inside the White House, that would be another way of reassuring people even more.

Let's hope he has a strong, effective approach working with his staff and Cabinet. These days, he needs all the help he can get - with as much support, loyalty and teamwork as possible.

This Subject Shouldn't Help Inspire An Oscar!

(With the Oscars scheduled for Feb. 22, this is my view on the subject of one of the movies nominated).

I’ve been unable to bring myself to see the movie, Frost/Nixon.

The movie seems like a fraud to me. I’ve heard the advertisements describe Frost and Nixon like they’re heavyweight fighters facing off for the world boxing championship.

Yet, David Frost is anything but a “heavyweight” or a “fighter.”

I know a little about Frost because I worked for him as a reporter/researcher during the summer of 1987 when he hosted a 13-part series of television interviews with the 1988 presidential candidates. I helped develop questions for Frost to use in those interviews.

First, I had found Frost’ 1977 interview with Nixon tremendously disappointing. Despite taping 28 hours with Nixon, Frost failed to extract much of anything newsworthy from Nixon. Nevertheless, in 1987, I hoped Frost would challenge the 1988 candidates at least a bit. I knew Frost was the polar opposite of Mike Wallace, but, I had no idea on the extent to which Frost would repeatedly choose to avoid seeking important truths in these interviews, and, instead, focus on having chummy conversations that allowed the candidates to dictate most of the content.

Frost conducted the 1987 interviews at the homes of the candidates.

Let me recall a few anecdotes:

· During our preparation for Frost’ interview with then-Vice President George H.W. Bush, a 1988 presidential candidate, we agreed that it’d be interesting if Frost were to ask Bush about the death of his three-year-old daughter. She had died of leukemia but Bush had rarely discussed this.
Frost raised the topic during the interview and Bush began to describe personal recollections. Bush began to get emotional, when, suddenly, his advisor, Roger Ailes, jumped up and demanded that the cameras be turned off and the interview stopped. Frost and our crew did nothing to stop this virtual “censorship” to occur and minutes later, after this “break,” I recall Frost continued the interview by moving on to other subjects.

· We traveled to the Chicago home of candidate Jesse Jackson where we were forced to wait a long time. (Painstaking preparations were made to set up each of these interviews, which required a large TV crew). Jackson, to our dismay, was not there and there was no sign of him after more than a half-hour. We waited and waited. The crew had the lights and props all set up when, finally, Jackson, arrived, incredibly late.
He greeted Frost by spontaneously inviting him to accompany him to an event about to start soon that featured then-mayor Harold Washington. Frost, who Jackson had just pushed aside to take care of his own needs, simply acquiesced to Jackson without complaining and went off with him. When Jackson and Frost returned, Frost did a remarkably uneventful interview, avoiding many potentiallly compelling, significant topics to raise with Jackson.

· Frost’ interview with Mike Dukakis, was, by a twist of circumstance, scheduled for the night of the day when Dukakis had to accept the resignation of his campaign manager John Sasso, his most trusted advisor, who was viewed as indispensable to his campaign. Many journalists would’ve seen this as an incredible opportunity to ask Dukakis probing questions about this story. Yet, Frost did not press Dukakis for any details or even spend much time on it.

· Frost chose to not ask General Alexander Haig any challenging questions about his relationship with Nixon in Nixon’s last months in office or other controversial times in his career.

I could give numerous examples, but, my own experience – as one of a few researchers developing questions – was that Frost chose never to ask my best questions – questions that would have explored new angles or uncovered ground with candidates. Instead, Frost was content to ask general, “softball” questions such as:

What is your relationship with God? Do you think there is a God or do you know there is a God?

What is your earliest memory – the first thing you can remember?

What would you say is the most important personal quality that a President needs?

What I observed was that: David Frost was an entertainer – not a journalist. I saw this – firsthand in his approach before, during and after his 1987 interviews.

And, I saw the same approach in 1977, when Frost paid Nixon $600,000 and a share of the profits to conduct the interviews. Much significance was paid to Nixon making a public apology for his Watergate role, but, that was a moment, which, by definition, would have constituted “news” whenever Nixon chose to do so. Did it come as a result of Frost’ journalistic skills?

As a Watergate buff myself, I recall that Frost did not try to shine light on all kinds of shocking Watergate details with Nixon. I also recall that certain individuals did press for the truth about Nixon in the 1970s, as events unfolded. I recall former US Sen. Lowell Weicker (R-Ct.), during the US Senate Watergate hearings, aggressively interrogating Nixon’s top aides, HR Haldeman and John Erlichman, under oath about what they knew about Watergate. I recall people like James McCord, Judge John Sirica, and, probably the most, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post. These were people who helped get the truth out with regard to Nixon and Watergate.

So, when I’ve heard the advertisements for Frost/Nixon suggesting that Frost was Nixon’s primary adversary, or, interrogator. I think back not only to the true muckrakers who brought Nixon down, but, to my own experience with David Frost – and, it bothers me.

To make a movie that greatly elevates and distorts the role of David Frost, is not only disappointing and misleading. It seems like a fraud.

A Need to Lower Expectations About Obama

We had grown to expect nothing from George W. Bush. Worse, we weren't that surprised when the Bush Administration, in its last two months, was astoundingly negligent in addressing our rapidly sinking economy. Meanwhile, the media and a segment of the public, expected Barack Obama to begin acting like the President even before he took office. In fact, Obama, as President-elect, took a number of steps to send signals aimed at the economy.

Since his Jan. 20th Inaugural, President Obama and his Administration have poured all their energy into wrestling with the economic crisis. Yesterday, House and Senate leaders reached agreement on Obama's $789 billion stimulus package. Still, the struggle continues. The uncertainty continues as to whether these actions in Washington will improve the economy.
It all makes me wonder:

Shouldn't we lower our expectations about what Obama can do about the economy, and, what he can do as President, in general?

Public and media expectations seem to have gone from one extreme (Bush) to the other (Obama) Obama's first three weeks should remind everyone that the President cannot and does not control much what happens nationally.
While the media has focused a lot on Obama's "ups" and "downs," they have not focused enough on some details and undercurrents, including the following:

1) Most media coverage of Obama has lacked context in that it has disregarded the incredible "mess" that he inherited from Bush -- a more pressing, overwhelming combination of crises than any President in modern history. Think about it: Obama's first days in office have been spent trying to win support for his first legislation - which happened to be the largest financial spending/tax cut deal in the history of the country! Yet, when House and most Senate Republicans didn't respond to Obama's overtures for support, some journalists concluded that Obama's attempt for a more bipartisan approach has failed - and, would be shelved now. Give me a break. Obama has been President three weeks.


2) The Republicans' stubborn position, if anything, illustrated a pattern that has prevailed in Washington for the past eight years, and, back to the Clinton years. Both parties are accustomed to spouting their partisan arguments without even trying to listen to each other, without true debate that rewards the merit of arguments and without genuine efforts to compromise and get results. Politicians in both parties are not held accountable for their unwillingness to work together. It seems Obama was accurate when he said, at his nationally televised press conference, that "old habits die hard." Hopefully, he'll convince others to "start over."

3) House Democrats, meanwhile, didn't do much to move things along. Did anyone notice how few House Democrats surfaced publicly - on TV, for instance, to vigorously support the stimulus package?

It was as if Obama was doing most of the "selling" while Democrats were griping and whining in the background about how hard it was to concede significant ground on parts of the stimulus.
For days, Republicans kept a constant attack on parts of the bill they claimed were wasteful "pork" while many Democrats didn't fight back with any force or effectiveness. Obama did the heavy lifting. The small minority of Republicans stole the platform from the large majorities in the House and Senate. If this dynamic continues, it will probably drive Obama crazy.

4) Obama's performance at his first press conference was about as sharp a contrast from Bush as imaginable. As the President gave his answers, he thoughtfully described the pros and cons of arguments and approached topics from different angles. He was truly thinking spontaneously as he gave each reply about the issues raised.

5) One of Obama's tendencies at the press conference was a bit troubling: Many of his answers were way too long, and, I mean much longer than necessary. The President appeared oblivious or insensitive to what impact his lengthy replies might have on his audience, which, after all, included millions of Americans watching at home. To me, when a politician rambles in this kind of extreme fashion, it can often suggest an egomania or a seeming "delusion" of grandeur. When I worked in New York state government and Mario Cuomo was governor, I noticed that Cuomo often gave strikingly lengthy opening statements (lectures) to the press, and answers that dominated the event and constrained reporters' chance to probe. I'm not suggesting Obama lacks control of his ego; however, I've noticed, on occasion, that he seems unaware that his replies are becoming not only expansive, but excessive.

6) Another point about the press conference: Why did Obama pre-select which specific reporters to call on? That was unusual. One journalist speculated in an article afterward that perhaps Obama wanted to "reward" the reporters on his list. Whatever the motivation, I hope he does not do that again. It removes spontaneity, excludes reporters and is too controlling.

7) I mentioned the lack of context in coverage of Obama's first three weeks. For example, within a period of two or three days, Obama, in reply to a quesion at his press conference, discussed his intention to look for openings that might result in starting a new diplomatic relationship with Iran. He indicated - as he promised in his campaign - that he is open to moving in a new direction with Iran, if Iran sends promising signals in return. The next day, Iranian President Ahmadinejad made a fairly positive comment in response & seemed open to listening to Obama. Shortly after that, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, followed up on Obama's remarks, by mentioning potential improvements in relations with Iran, but she seemed a bit more sober about it. It's too early to tell what Obama's signals on Iran mean, but, they certainly represent a total break from the Bush era - and, I'd argue, any such communication is better than virtually no "open or positive" signal during eight years under Bush.

8) Much was said about Tom Daschle's withdrawal from his nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services. The press analyzed it primarily as a significant setback to Obama and tried to identify how it happened. Yet, the press overlooked an interesting, revealing detail smack in the middle of the episode. This detail was that after Daschle's tax problems became public, Obama remarked publicly that he "absolutely" supported Daschle's continuing nomination. The media let Obama off the hook for this by not questioning why he'd choose to not cut ties with Daschle at that moment. Obama was doing exactly what he labled as unacceptable -- giving special treatment to Daschle by downplaying his tax mistakes, which would get other Americans in trouble. I think it was probably just a typical omission by the press, which devoted "pack-mentality" coverage to that incident.

9) Don't you get the sense that the Obama team is rushing to get a little too much done at this early stage? Granted, the economy warrants urgent attention, but Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner's Feb. 10th presention about another huge bailout for banks drew tremendous criticism after Geithner offered no details in his bailout plan. My question is: If he was not ready to offer details, why did he feel compelled to give his speech Feb. 10th? Maybe he, and the Administration, should have said candidly that more time was needed to prepare the plan.

10) If one tries to imagine how the past five or six Presidents would be faring right now in handling the economic crisis, two wars and other problems, I think it reminds one of Obama's relative strengths. George W. Bush, we know would've been overmatched completely. Bill Clinton probably would have been knowledgeable & articulate on it, but, would he have been as credible when discussing ethical lapses on Wall Street? Bush Sr. would not have been as convincing in presenting arguments. Reagan would've been told what to do by his top aides and brought an ideological bias to the whole topic. In any event, it's good to have a young, energetic, highly intelligent, calm, reasonable President. At least, it seems that way after three short weeks.

Despite Hurdles, Obama is Bringing Positive Change

It was not a great week for President Obama; yet, even in handling adversity, he reminded us of the leadership we've missed during the past eight years under the inept George W. Bush.

Obama, in a flurry of television interviews repeatedly acknowledged that he had "screwed up" in his handling of Tom Daschle's nomination to be HHS Secretary. At a painful moment, confronted with the loss of his close ally, Daschle, Obama accepted responsibility for Daschle's withdrawal (due to his tax problems) as nomineee for HHS Secretary.
Did George Bush ever admit a mistake of any size in such a public way? No. Why, he couldn't even admit he was wrong to order the invasion of Iraq and that thousands of US soldiers and Iraqi civilians had died as a result. He could not admit he & his Administration basically invented a false rationale for the Iraq war and repeatedly engaged in a propagandist effort to link Saddam Hussein to Al Quaeda when, in fact, Al Quada was not even in Iraq until Bush's invasion led them to establish a presence there. Bush's actions on Iraq amounted to more than a mistake; they were grounds for impeachment. Yet, at the end of his presidency, he said only that he regretted no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

I raise Bush to underscore the incredible change in qualities, approach and character between him and Obama after a week when Obama took a fair share of criticism and second-guessing -- some of it deserved and some of it distorted or undeserved, in my view.

The following are ten points about Obama and the coverage that I think could have received more attention or emphasis:

1) With all the analysis of Obama's stimulus package, too little emphasis has been given to the poor job House Democrats did in developing the spending plans and programs included. The Republicans effectively ripped the wasteful portions of the stimulus package day after day, but, no House Democrats - including Speaker Nancy Pelosi - emerged to provide Obama with loyal support when he needed it. To the contrary, House Democrats were largely silent and allowed the minority of Republicans to frame - and, steal - the dynamic of the public debate. The media coverage was not altered or "qualified" by the fact that Republicans were venting most of their criticism at about one percent of the package -- until Obama himself pointed that out during his TV interviews. The House members left the heaving lifting to Obama, who was distracted trying to run the country in his first days in office.


2) On a related, larger point, isn't it striking that Obama has not been served well by a number of individuals and groups who could have come through for him. a) First, he had several appointees who - it turned out - had problems with taxes or other matters - Bill Richardson, Tim Geithner, Tom Dasche & Nancy Killefer - and all could have told him of the problems that were made public later. These appointees caused unnecessary quagmires for Obama. b) Instead of responding to Obama's call for bipartisanship during the unprecedented economic crisis, most House Democrats have returned to their old partisan ways. They included many items in the stimulus bill that offered no "stimulative" effect, and, worse, seemed unrelated to economic woes. House Democrats left themselves and Obama wide open to criticism. Republicans kept citing specific wasteful spending items even though all they seemed to propose was tax cuts.
I got the impression that members of Congress "still don't get it" in terms of why Obama got elected. The public is really, really sick of Democrats and Republicans in Congress being predisposed to fight and fail to produce results; rather, they want action - now.


3) The Obama team - and House Democrats - made a large blunder by failing to develop and implement a communications strategy for explaing and "selling" the stimulus package to the public, and, press over the past ten days. They didn't seem to even have "talking points" for discussing aspects of the stimulus plan. As Obama & company were using "general" or "vague" points, Republicans kept harping on specifics - even their arguments were often out of context.


4) Obama, in two weeks, has been more open - or, as he says, "transparent" - in how he makes decisions than Bush was and other Presidents as well. The impression - from the whole team - from Obama, to Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, to others - has been that they're at least trying to keep the public and press informed about developments. At a moment of crisis - and, as a new, young President, it's wise of he and his team to have him be visible much of the time. It's reassuring. On several occasions, it's clear Obama has given similar messages to small groups in private as he or his team does to the public. That's a refreshing, incredible contrast to W.

5) On foreign policy, Obama has initiated several significant moves. a) He is reviewing the US position on Afghanistan - a topic warranting serious reconsideration. b) In his very first public remarks on the Middle East conflict, he chose include a point about the importance of getting humanitarian aid to the Palestianians. He appointed George Mitchell as special envoy and Mitchell, only days later, was meeting leaders in the Middle East. c) Obama gave his first sit-down interview to an Arabic television network and discussed issues relevant to Muslims and Arabs across the world.

6) Obama has acknowledged publicly he supports re-branding the US "war on terror" by redefining its conflicts with terrorists by referring the specific names of different terrorist groups .

7) The Obama administaration is sending signals it wants to initiate new diplomatic efforts to engage Iran. This comes at a delicate, important moment in Iran's relations with not only the US but the rest of the world - as its development of a nuclear facility gets closer to finalization.

8) Obama, the day after the bad news about Daschle, announced the Administration's tough, new policy on banning bonuses (in executive compensation) for CEOs of companies that had received money from bailouts

9) Obama, in his first 48 hours, kept his campaign pledge to close Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention center by announcing plans to do so within the next year despite an array of complications AND signed an executive order banning harsh interrogations amounting to "torture."

10) Obama established tough, new ethics rules for all those employed the White House. The rules, in some instances, seem to set such high standards that it might be hard to hire and keep people in their positions.

Yet, it's sure good to have a President who is at least is trying - so far - to get things done and follow the rules. He made a few blunders this past week, but, let's pause to recognize that, relatively speaking, he's bringing change to the White House.

Time-out for Tennis -- Another Federer-Nadal Gem

For me, a lifelong sports fan, it is a unique joy to watch Roger Federer play tennis. He is so good, commanding and versatile that, often, he can defeat most of his opponents when one part of his game is "off."

Except when he plays against Rafael Nadal, his nemesis.

Nadal, at the moment, appears to have Federer's number - both physically, on the court, and, psychologically. Of course, Nadal has strengthened and perfected his game at such a frightening speed that he is now the top-ranked player in the world at 22. Yet, still, even with Nadal playing more consistently in the past year, the two stars seem close enough in talent to create suspense and uncertainty any time they meet.

So, if that's true, why has Nadal beaten Federer in five of the seven times they've met in Grand Slam events - and, 13 of their 19 total matches? Why did Nadal win yesterday's 2009 Australian Open finals - even though, coming in - Federer was playing very well and Nadal had endured an exhausting, five-set semi-final? And, why did Federer, after appearing to have "momentum" at the end of the fourth set, seem to "lose it" and play worse in the fifth set? This intrigues me and I can only hope they keep meeting in tournament finals so I can analyze it more

Here are my "ten points" on why yesterday's final turned out as it did:

1) Federer's first serve - in a baffling, extraordinary twist - was really bad for much of the match. He rarely got it in. As a result, he rarely was in his normal, powerful "flow" when he hits winners off his great serve. Instead, Nadal often made Federer work hard just to win many of his service games -- a truly unusual and damaging aspect of the match.

2) Nadal had a great game plan - to hit it virtually non-stop to Federer's backhand - keeping Federer from using his strong forehand nearly as much. Sometimes, I think Nadal's success at this simple, precise part of their matchup is why he beats Federer so often. When Federer plays everyone else, he finds a way to run around his backhand a lot more. Nadal is too good with his precise placement to allow Federer to do that.

3) Relatedly, Nadal was able - for much of the match - to run Federer all over the court. He kept Federer on the defensive - often because he gained an edge from belting some of Federer's "average" backhand returns.

4) Federer, in contrast, seemed to have no game plan. Often, he hit his returns too near the center of the court. Often, he was unable to pounce on Nadal's average second serves. If Federer wants to start beating Nadal, it's fairly clear now, that his strategy has not worked. He cannot outrally Nadal - No player can.

5) A part of Federer's strategy, in the future, must be to try to hit more winners. His best moments yesterday came when he went for broke and hit winners. I, for one, think the only way to beat Nadal is to hit many winners - the way Verdasco did vs. Nadal in their great semi-final match. Why does Federer play so cautiously against Nadal? Why does he seem to think he can get away with shots down the middle of the court? It's as if Federer has a bit of "denial" about how good Nadal has become OR that he's trying to prove he can beat Nadal at his (Nadal's) own game.

6) I believe - as others have noted - that Federer has become so accustomed to having an advantage over his opponents - and playing that way - that he is unaccustomed to know how to defeat someone at his same level talentwise. Federer can often dominate with his serve and win matches while outrallying his inferior opponents. Nadal doesn't lose rallies or make unforced errors and Federer, stubbornly, has failed to acknowledge this by significantly changing his strategy. Federer is a terrific "frontrunner," often winning after he gets a lead. He's not used to going toe-to-toe with an opponent like Nadal. But, he HAS to change to beat Nadal - period.

7) Federer, in several parts of the match, seemed to "tighten up," and be "thinking too much" on the court. He seemed to be psyching himself out. This was particularly true in the fifth set, when Federer made a variety of unforced errors and seemed to "hand" the set to Nadal. How could that happen so abruptly? Maybe part it is simply that Federer felt pressure and knew Nadal was unlikekly to make mistakes - so, it was all on him. I think there is more to it. I think that despite the score being even - going into the fifth set - that Federer had become "worn down" by Nadal. He hadn't won any easy points. Nadal kept forcing him to hit backhands - and he couldn't hit his backhand flawlessly for five sets. (I think he was sick of hitting his backhand - That Nadal's relentless barrage of high topspin shots into his backhand had driven him a bit crazy) So, when Federer "lost it," it was partly that he had already been forced to play "uphill" for much of the match --- without his first serve and without his forehand.

8) It's time for Federer to ADJUST - finally to the reality that Nadal, right now, is outplaying him every time - and, is the best in the world. Federer has to try new approaches and take new risks. The most obvious challenge: He has to figure out how he can hit more forehands against Nadal -- Perhaps he has to run around his backhand on Nadal's second serve or go to the net once in a while.

9) Federer reminds me of Pedro Martinez when he was on the Red Sox. When Pedro was just past his prime - but still great - he'd often have to "ad-lib" more on the pitcher's mound. He'd find ways to win when he didn't have all his pitches. He was so good, that, often, he still won his share of important games. However, when Pedro stubbornly refused to adjust -and, for instance, kept trying to get his diminishing fastball by good hitters, he would fail - and act a bit surprised. Federer, like Pedro, must adjust to the new realities of what his nemisis, Nadal, brings - and how to use his skills to win by using a bit more creativity.

10) Nadal has improved his game faster (and at a younger age) than any player I've ever seen. He's transformed his backhand from an average stroke to a lethal weapon. (He flicked incredible backhand winners throughout yesterday's match). If Nadal stays healthy and keeps improving, he may go down as what Federer had hoped to -- the best player in the history of tennis. Indeed, if Federer has been like "Superman," it seems he has met the one opponent who affects him like Kryptonite. Will Superman become "super" again? It's intriguing to wonder.

.

Overlooked in Coverage of Obama Inaugural

Despite media coverage from across the globe, there were a few aspects and details of Barack Obama's Inauguration that were either completely ignored, or, overlooked, when, it seemed to me, they warranted at least a little attention:

For example:

1) Obama went out of his way to signal to the world that, as President, he was starting an era of diplomacy and efforts to build better relations without using military action. In the one specific part of his speech when he could have chosen "tougher" words, Obama, instead, said the following:

"...And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."

I just found it striking that Obama spoke of "our spirit" rather than referring to our military superiority, so often cited by past presidents. How often does a President, immediately after referring to terrorism like that, speak only of our (American) spirit - and not our military? It was no accident. Obama, in several instances, stressed our "common humanity" and the US interest in getting along, respecting each other and focusing on the common bonds we have with people across the world.

2) Also, while Obama's brief, powerful message to the Muslim world was noted, I thought it deserved even more attention. He said: "...To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict or blame their society's ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy...." What a beautiful, concise, symbolic signal to send in his very first opportunity to speak to the world as President. He was confronting, realistically, the strain in relations between Muslims and the US that had intensified during the eight years of Bush's foreign policy.

3) Again, while noted, it was really noteworthy that Obama chose to make only one direct reference to his being the first African-American President. He spoke of how the meaning of liberty in the US was "why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath..."
On this of all days, a truly unique moment in history, Obama chose to stick to his theme and approach used throughout his long presidential campaign - of NOT emphasizing or drawing more attention to his race.

4) Television media noted the huge crowd repeatedly, but did not make much of an effort to explain why so many ordinary citizens had chosen to make the long trip to Washington DC. They didn't comment much on what had made Obama such a different candidate and how and why he had touched so many people's lives - not only in the crowd in DC, but, watching around the country. I'd say that one simplistic summation would be that Obama was "getting back" at least some of the good will and positive energy he had "given" to so many people. He is a "different" leader - and, it seems he may be, a "different" President because of some of that "transcendent" leadership ability. He has a bit of Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King in him, it seems to me - a power and a gift that goes beyond most presidential candidates we've seen.

5) Obama, within the first hour or two after being sworn in, showed us a glimpse - again - of his capacity for spontaneous leadership and cool when, after joining others in responding to the sudden collapse of US Sen. Edward Kennedy, returned to the room where Kennedy had fallen ill, and made brief remarks, saying with emotion: "I'd be lying to you if I did not say right now a part of me is with him and I think that's true for all of us."

6) It seems we've all been spoiled by how many outstanding speeches or extemporaneous remarks we've already heard from Obama. I noticed that quite a few observers commented that his speech was not really special or memorable -- that it was good, but not great. Well, perhaps it could've been better, but, I'd challenge anyone to name a better Inaugural address in the past 40 years. JFK's in 1960 certainly included a couple of phrases that became historic and, argubly, made that a extraordinary speech, but, if you think of all the Presidents since, I don't think any of their Inaugural speeches were as good as Obama's. Obama eloquently signalled his new era of leadership to the world while bracing Americans, in an unusually sober way, for the tough times ahead at home. (Some Presidents don't dare get that sober in their first speech)

7) The hearsay about some rift between former President Jimmy Carter and former President Bill Clinton may amount to nothing, but it's interesting that so soon after the occasion when the former Presidents met for lunch with Obama -- and Carter went out of his way to stand a bit apart from Clinton -- that we hear about Carter ignoring Clinton moments before they all walked out for the Inauguration. Given reports that the two leaders have had ups and downs in their relationship for years, this piece of gossip, seemed a bit more intriguing.

8) On a somewhat lighter note: It was ironic, humorous and surprising to see Obama - the man who made fewer mistakes or gaffes in his campaign than any candidate in modern history - be part of a stumble - with Chief Justice Roberts - in his actual swearing in -- when they got out of synch -- and Obama paused, waiting for Roberts to correct himself.

It was NOT important in any lasting way, but, rather, just so unlikely that this particular candidate, who always seems to avoid misspeaking or any blunders, could ......Perhaps, it was a good thing -- a way for him to remind all of us to bring him down to Earth a bit!

9) Biden showed a more predictable personality trait, when, at the end of his oath, he loudly thanked the Justice Stevens. It was reminiscent of Biden making endless deferential remarks to Judge Robert Bork during the hearings he chaired 20 years ago. Biden just couldn't stay quiet - even after the most important, solemn oath he had just finished.

10) On a lighter note: Did anyone notice that as Obama, seconds before his began to take the oath of office (as he walked from his chair to the spot he stood, that he began to laugh - and, at one second, seemed to have trouble controlling what was either a nervous laugh or a burst of giddiness? Is that what prompted Justice Roberts to say: "Are you ready to take the oath now, Senator?"