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.

Gates Saga Aftermath and Midsummer Thoughts

The part of the Gates episode that will stay with me is the undercurrent of anger, intolerance and racism among some white people that was directed toward Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates -- and, to a lesser, but, striking extent, toward President Obama for his comment on the matter. The reaction of these whites seemed to suggest they felt very offended and fed up by Gates having the gall to lose his temper at a white police officer.

Why were white people so affected? Why were they so "ready" to unload their venom toward Gates?

In addition, why were they "blaming the victim," in a sense? Sgt. James Crowley, the white Cambridge, (Ma.) police officer, had not "suffered" or been "victimized" except for being yelled at by Gates and his police department later being criticized by Obama.
Gates had been the actual "victim" in the central event. He was the one mistakenly suspected for breaking into a house that turned out to be his home! He was the one given little "slack" by Crowley in that, after he did some yelling, he was handcuffed and taken to the police station for several hours. Gates' outburst at Crowley does not explain why I keep hearing white people calling in to radio talk shows -- with bitterness and resentment in their voices - to rip Gates and defend Crowley's right to arrest him.

No. Sadly, I think this incident was, to some extent, a metaphor for the state of race relations in 2009.

These "offended" white people did not suffer anything. They're choosing to view Gates - and Obama - as scapegoats for their own underlying, simmering feelings. They're "dumping" their discontent - probably due to their own personal struggles - onto these two black men. Have you noticed the large percentage of white people who seem to keep "driving" this story? Have you read the "Comment" sections that followed the numerous newspaper stories on this episode? Many of the white commenters do not seem to care much about what really happened. Rather, they just seem fed up with certain issues about race.

My own speculation is that a good-sized segment of white people - including those who expressed outrage at Gates - are just tired of hearing black people complain about all kinds of things. I sense this group does not want to hear a word about racial profiling, for instance. They are angry about "reverse discrimination" that they feel goes on all the time. They have no patience or forgiveness toward a black man like Gates yelling at a white police officer, and, particularly having the nerve to allege the officer was motivated by racism. In short, they don't seem to care much about the plight of blacks.

Unsurprisingly, many, many black people who have been interviewed about this Gates episode have recalled incidents when they've been victims of racial profiling. In some instances, the black journalists doing the interviews have shared their own experiences of being racially profiled. The facts on racial profiling are indisputable and troubling. Whenever I hear a black man tell an anecdote about profiling and I realize the scope of this continuing act of prejudice and injustice, it jars me and depresses me to think of so many blacks still being mistreated like this. It reminds me that the civil rights movement didn't improve things for huge pockets of our society.

• Another striking point that emerged from the Gates episode was the enormous impact of President Obama's spontaneous comment, during his July 23rd nationally televised press conference. When Obama remarked that the "Cambridge police acted stupidly," he pushed all kinds of buttons and elevated the entire episode. Obama later acknowledged his poor choice of words, and, clearly, his mere criticism of a police department was very unusual for a President. However, Obama's "mistake" left lingering impressions. First, if he had used words other than "acted stupidly," would the impact have differed? Secondly, do we dwell too much on Presidents and politicians, generally, "misspeaking"? Michael Kinsley, in a July 31st oped in the Washington Post, wrote, insightfully, about how unfortunate it'd be if Obama became more cautious as a result of this "gaffe." "The people who declare that a president has a special responsibility not to say anything offensive have it wrong," Kinsley wrote. "The president has a special responsibility to address important topics and to say important things. That can't be done in a thin-skinned political culture obsessed with gaffes, and with a citizenry overly quick to take offense.......We complain about politicians who talk in pre-tested and rehearsed sound bites, but we punish anyone who strays too far into his or her own thinking." Obama took SO much heavy, somber criticism and attack for his "mistaken" choice of words that one would have thought he'd made a mistake of large scale that negatively impacted millions. The reaction illustrated, again, another kind of intolerance in our society -- in this case, an intolerance toward criticism of police.
• Obama's drop in public opinion polls received a lot of media attention. It hardly seems a surprise to me that a President who has been in office during the worst recession since the Depression who has been forced to approve of unprecedented intervention by the federal government into economic matters and who also is trying to overhaul the health care system would eventuaally become more vulnerable to public anxiety, doubt and opposition. I think, interestingly, that Obama has reached the point when he should reduce his exposure and stop doing so many "Town Hall" meetings and interviews with the media. I think he has grown a bit over-exposed. He should stay in the White House and focus on steps that will increase the prospects to get a good health care bill passed.
• So far, so good. That's what I feel about the relationship between President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The signs suggest the two former rivals have gotten along well and respect each other. I've been pleased that Hillary, thus far, has appeared to be a "team player" and always signals her deference to the President. At the same time, I've been impressed with Hillary's confidence and firmness in her new role. I knew she'd develop a quick command of her new terrain, but, I think she has brought an energy and heft to this position. Yes, she made a few striking blunders on her recent trip, but, all in all, she seems to have helped Obama in a way he had envisioned.
• Vice President Joseph Biden, on the other hand, made a few significant verbal blunders all within a few weeks recently, and, seems unable to restrain his predisposition to speak before thinking sometimes. First, Biden said the Obama administration had "misread the economy" - a phrase the President quickly corrected. Then, Biden said Russsia had a "withering ecnomy" and "they have a banking sector and structure that is not likely to be able to withstand the next 15 years." Secretary of State Clinton quickly did damage control, publicly cleaning up these remarks. Then, Biden hinted that the US would not stop Israel from hypothetically attacking Iran if Israel felt Iran posed "an existential threat." Again, the President had to clarify what the US position was by correcting Biden.
• The ultimate verdict on Obama's attempt for major health care reform remains unclear. However, I think the Obama team has been too "loosey-goosey" in its work with the House and Senate on the package. It seems that every few days, we've heard reports of problems, obstacles and political squabbles that've emerged. While I think much of that has been unavoidable, I agree with critics who have suggested that Obama could have indicated more about which components he believes are most critical in a final bill. Obama has tried to have it both ways by talking in generalities and allowing extensive Congressional participation while still expecting to get his way. At times, he has seemed too removed from the discussion -- as if others hold the fate of reform in their hands. Now, more recently, when he got back from his trip abroad, he got more involved. I just hope Congress and the President can meet in the middle somewhere. If reform effort fails, I fear it'll hurt Obama's Presidency beyond expectations.
• Here's a question: Why does the media keep covering the crazy suggestions by the so-called "birthers" who have suggested that President Obama is not a citizen of the US? Ten Republican members of Congress co-sponsored a bill that would require future presidential candidates to provide a copy of their original birth certificate. The bill is all about attracting questions and attention to the phony question of Obama's citizenship --- even though not a shred of evidence has emerged to suggest anything inauthentic about Obama's birth certificate. In other words, it's a total sham that deserves ZERO attention. So, why do I keep seeing television stories about these reckless, phony, laughable allegastions? Answer: The TV networks and cable stations think it's entertaining. So, what they're saying is: "Here's a story that's false, but we think it's titilating to put it on the air, anyway - even though we know it's false - so, we're doing it for ratings. That's how pathetic our news business has become. News = entertainment, period.
• I was upset to learn that one of my favorite Red Sox players, David Ortiz, had tested positively for performance-enhancing drugs back in 2003. I hope Ortiz's use was limited (i.e that he hasn't been using steroids for most of the past six years), but, I have two points: 1) This is not, so far, changing how I feel about the Red Sox two championships. Yes, they might be a bit tainted, but, I feel all of baseball has been tainted by steroids, and, 2) I hope baseball will finally find a way to communicate about players' use of steroids - past, present and future - because I find it impossible to understand the facts and context that go with this topic and what was legal or acceptable or not and when. It's a confusing mess.

Gates Episode Triggers Disturbing Reactions

I was disturbed by many aspects of the recent, controversial incident involving Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates and the Cambridge, (MA.) Police Department - including the media coverage and the public reaction to it.

In the end, I believe the incident was elevated into a much more intense, racially charged, negative drama because of the intolerance that the Cambridge Police Department and others displayed toward Gates' angry reaction. The key detail, I believe, was the police's reaction to the content of Gates' venting -- i.e. That he felt he was the victim of racial discrimination.

Sergeant Jim Crowley, the arresting police officer, seemed to disregard these comments of Gates. Instead, he focused on Gates' belligerence to his authority and determined that Gates had yelled at him a bit too long and crossed an imaginary line that defined what amounted to "disorderly conduct." Crowley claims racial issues had no influence on his actions. Assuming that's true, did he have to handcuff Gates, despite his outburst, and take him to the police station for four hours? No way. It was within Crowley's discretion to respond as he saw fit. He could have walked away. So, when Cambridge cops said that Crowley went "by the book," they didn' t add that if he had walked away, he would've also "gone by the book."

I think the cops still don't "get it" because, even if one assumes that Crowley was not at all influenced by Gates' race, Crowley still could and should have shown at least some discretion by acknowledging Gates' sensibility on the racial context was different than his. (He could have apologized for the mistaken investigation, tried to meet him half-way and calmly tried to address his racial concerns) Reinforcing this point was the fact that Crowley, we learned, had led trainings on the topic of racial profiling. He knew the dynamics.

President Obama alluded to this part of the story on Friday, July 24th, when he attempted to ease tensions.

"What I'd like to do then is make sure that everybody steps back for a moment," Obama said, "recognizes that these are two decent people, not extrapolate too much from the facts, but, as I said at the press conference, be mindful of the fact that because of our history, because of the difficulties of the past, you know, African-Americans are sensitive to these issues.
"And even when you've got a police officer who has a fine track record on racial sensitivity, interactions between police officers and the African-American community can sometimes be fraught with misunderstanding."

Obama seems to be suggesting he thinks Crowley could have exercised more discretion toward Gates' race-related sensitivity and given Gates more "slack" given the racial dynamics in play.
The question lingers: Why does Obama, and all of us who agree with him, believe Gates' outburst - however excessive - could have been tolerated while so many other people - including an apparent majority of cops - believe Gates' loud complaints fully warranted his arrest for "disorderly conduct"? Why have so many white people been triggered to attack Gates for even introducing race? Some seem to resent that Gates even showed the nerve to assert himself so vigorously to a white cop questioning him. It seems the image - alone - of an angry black man yelling at a white cop disturbed many white people.

This disparity in tolerance - which has seemed to vary depending on if one is white or black - without question, is at the center of this episode. In fact, I think the public response to this incident suggests something more disturbing: That perhaps many, many people did NOT want to even hear Gates' complaints AT ALL about the racial issues. In addition, I sense people are not as open or sensitive about hearing about racial profiling as they should be. In summary, this incident was a depressing reminder that the state of race relations still has a LONG way to go. Not only did I see intolerance in "Comments" of readers at the end of newspaper articles, but I saw an expression of reactions that amounted to racism directed at Gates and Obama.

• Among several other points that caught my interest were these:
  
• While most have stressed that, of course, the Cambridge police acted appropriately to investigate a "possible break-in" at Gates' address on July 16th, few have dwelled on the unlikelihood of a break-in or burglary being attempted at mid-day, in broad daylight. A woman who didn't know Gates and was not his neighbor made the initial call to the police.
• While noting that Crowley denied race was a factor in the episode, Boston Globe columnist Adrian Walker, in an excellent July 24th piece, that, "of course" race was a part of this. "I don't believe for one second that Alan Dershowitz, in the same situation, would have ended up with a mug shot," wrote Walker. First, his neighbor probably wouldn't have called the police, even if she didn't recognize him. Second, Crowley probably would have gone away..."
• Walker, also, was one of the few journalists to get a comment from Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone, who decided to drop Cambridge's "disorderly conduct" charge against Gates. Walker, in the same column said that Leone believes that no one covered themselves in glory here. "Crowley got his back up," Leone said. "He's saying all he did was respond. I think both of them, privately, are saying, "I could have handled this better"
• Later on, the media and public response to President Obama's brief remarks, at his July 22nd press conference, on the Gates episode triggered an overwhelming response - much of it negative toward Obama for his choice of words when he said: "....the Cambridge police acted stupidly." I paid close attention to the media response to Obama and noticed they "pounced" on his mistake in his choice of words. I mean "pounced." They also criticized him for choosing to give such a strong opinion, when, by his own admission, he didn't have all the facts. Obama, uncharacteristically, chose unfortunate phrases and words to give context to why he was choosing to weigh in on this matter. However, he did express several important points - including his last tangent when he reminded the national audience of how racial profiling continues to be a serious problem for blacks and latinos who are arrested disproportionately. Interestingly, a segment of the public didn't seem to welcome Obama's "joining" this story; in fact, I sensed many people were uncomfortable with Obama stepping out of his normal approach to stay out of racial issues. It seemed Obama felt he did not want to avoid this one - and he said, on Friday, he was glad he had weighed in.
• When I found some incredibly negative comments -including venom-filled ones - directed at Obama in the "Comment" sections following newspaper stories, I found it depressing. It took me back to the 2008 presidential campaign, when Obama had to duck and overcome so many hurdles that related somehow to race relations. During the Rev. Wright controversy or the outcry over Obama's off-the-cuff remark about people getting bitter and "clinging to guns and religion" More than anything, it reminded me of how incredibly vulnerable and fragile I thought Obama was because of his race. It just seemed that people were more ready to pounce on any errors he made. I recall when he attempted a spontaneous joke - in a reply to a question at the end of a lengthy debate with Hillary Clinton. Obama said: "She's (Hillary) likeable enough..." He was trying to be funny, but his delivery didn't work as he hoped. To my amazement, I saw that line played and re-played to illustrate that Obama had a "cold side" or something to that effect on a number of occasions throughout the campaign. It had been a bad, little joke that lasted three seconds. So, Obama has to monitor himself all the time and, yes, I absolutely believe he is granted much less slack because he is black.

I hope, despite the hazards of his situation, that Obama does weigh in on another racial matter like the Gates episode because - without his injecting himself into it - yes, he would've avoided political fallout, but he would not have done something I've never experienced: As the President of the United States, he challenged the approach of police departments on matters of race and brought attention to the important issue of racial profiling -- whether people want to hear it or not. This was a moment when Obama, by dropping his normal predispositions or inhibitions about discussing certain racial matters, gave the American people a radically different, new, constructive perspective on a race relations topic.

I hope it can be a "teachable moment" even in a small way because we have a long, long way to go with race relations. This Gates episode illustrated that.

Obama Must Shake "Big Government" Label

Barack Obama has been President only six months, but, his critics have given him a label that seems to be "sticking" in a troubling way. Republicans and other adversaries keep ripping Obama for "increasing government spending" and running up the federal deficit.

A Washington Post/ABC poll today is showing that 43 percent of respondents now view Obama as an "old-style tax-and-spend Democrat" - up from 32 percent in a previous edition. Also, the poll found that nearly a quarter of moderate and conservative Democrats (22 percent) now see Obama as an "old-style tax-and-spend Democrat" - up from 4 percent in that combined category in March, the Washington Post reported.

It's easy to see why Obama is perceived this way. From the minute he took office, he's presided over unprecedented "government spending," but much of it seemed necessary to aid the economy, which was spiraling downward toward a Depression-scale low point when Obama took office in late January. Obama was forced to approve bailouts of the banking and auto industries. (and use public funds to save firms like AIG) and to fight for passage of a huge government stimulus package. Then, instead of retreating into a more conservative approach due to the sagging economy, Obama launched his push for an overhaul of the health care system that will cost billions, and, potentially cause the federal deficit to soar.

So, some Republicans, in a typically distorted, negative way, have made it their mission to "brand" Obama as a "big spender" -- even though a large chunk of spending was necessary and recommended by economists from across the spectrum. (I think other criticisms of the Obama administration's handling of economic matters have been legitimate - such its "loosey-goosey" collaboration with Congress in developing the stimulus package). I think some of this "branding" of Obama has succeeded - perhaps partly by accident, but, in any event, one large reason is that Obama and his surrogates have failed to offer arguments to counter this image problem.

However, do Obama's actions so far make him a reckless deficit spender, OR, is he taking significant steps he promised on the campaign - that he believes, in the long run, will improve our economy?

Many Americans support Obama's intentions, but are worried about the costs - and, I think the Obama team should start acknowledging these worries a lot more. For the past two or three months, Obama and his people have appeared a bit too casual about the spending part of the health care reform bill, for instance, and, likewise, about the slow, delayed impact of the expensive stimulus package.

I think President Obama should begin to insert phrases into his public remarks about addressing costs to show people that: a) he cares about preventing deficits; b) with the exception of the stimulus package and bailouts to save the economy, he does not support spending huge amounts of public money without clear targets and goals; and, c) he plans to follow through on plans to cut waste from parts of the government and take steps to make it run more efficiently.

Obama should forcefully convey his concern about controlling costs in his health care reform proposal and overall spending during his prime-time press conference on July 22.

I've learned, through the years, just how deep-seated and chronic the taxpayers' anti-government sentiment can be in this often-reactionary country of ours. Many Americans not only dislike government, but strongly prefer that government stay out of matters it can avoid meddling in. Ronald Reagan capitalized on this anti-government impulse for years.

In the past 30 years, we've had only two Democratic presidents (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) and there are reasons for that. First, it's not a coincidence that Carter and Clinton were both from the south and that both ran as "centrists" rather than as "liberals." Secondly, once in office, both were held to a high standard for not allowing government spending to become excessive. (or, too "liberal") One of Clinton's strengths, to the surprise of many, ended up being his capacity to keep the federal deficit down.

Obama, who was probably never as "liberal" as his record suggested, nevertheless came into office with a more left-leaning image and voting record. Thus, if his actions in this first year bring him an image of a "big government spender" it may be very hard for him to shake. In fact, that image could saddle him and hurt him politically so much that it threatens his re-election.

So, as I observe Obama dealing with the health care reform issue, I'm thinking ahead to the rest of his term. I want him to succeed as President. To do that, he will have to demonstrate he is not a knee-jerk supporter of all government spending. (I'm not concerned about this, but, I think a segment of the public is).

In the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama portrayed himself as a post-partisan President with a "different" approach. He stressed he'd find ways to make goverment work better and try to reduce inefficiency. He implied he didn't care about political parties and politics as much as finding solutions.

The American people, in concept, would probably always support that logic. However, if Obama projects an image that suggests he sees the government as the author and keeper of most solutions - and that a never-ending increase in government spending is simply a necessary part of the process, he'll run into big trouble earlier than he thinks.

There has never been a President who has presided so quickly over such a gigantic amount of spending by the federal government. Further, this President had to approve of the federal government intervening in the auto industry with its bailout of General Motors and with the banking industry. This kind of government intrusion makes many Americans uneasy.

So, what Obama must realize and show that he realizes - is that from now on, he'll be careful and transparent as he announced plans for federal iniatives. He must show that he, too, not only wants to reduce the deficit, but has a specific game plan for doing so. And, if and when, his Administration unveils another stimulus package, Obama team must do a far better job at displaying accountability.

Obama has enormous potential to get some good things done in his first term. I'd hate to see the conventional world of Washington politics - with reactionaries leading the way - succeed in labeling him a "big-spending, big government liberal" who's like all the rest. (Personally, I don't mind the label that much, but, I think American Presidents are more likely to succeed if they at least appear to not have an automatic impulse to support all government spending).

If Obama wants to be truly different, he'll have to keep resisting others' attempts to mis-label him - and keep proving, through his actions, that he is, in fact, an independent, strong post-partisan leader.

More Random Musings on July 8th

I am really tired of coverage of Sarah Palin. Back in March, I complained that Sarah Palin was receiving far too much media attention given that she had discredited herself during the 2008 presidential campaign. The trend continues - now, with her recent resignation as governor of Alaska. On July 3rd, Palin announced she'd resign as governor on July 26th, more than a year before her first term is due to end. This week, her announcement continues to receive enormous attention and commentary. News anchors, reporters and columnists are all speculating about Palin's next move. Will she run for President in 2012? Sorry, but I have to repeat my point from March: Why is everyone devoting so much time and space to Palin when she demonstrated so repeatedly that she is completely unprepared for high office?
Well, the primary explanation, in my view, is that the news business, particularly the networks and cable news stations, know that Palin is entertaining and brings high ratings. Otherwise, this obsession with her makes zero sense. Palin's actions and statements since last November's presidential election have only reinforced just how limited her capabilities are. Todd Purdum's recent Vanity Fair article on Palin notes that former senior members of John McCain's campaign team grew to doubt Palin's readiness to be vice president. "......they can't quite believe that for two frantic months last fall, caught in a Bermuda Triangle of a campaign, they worked their tails off to try to elect as vice presidentof the United States someone who, by mid-October, they believed for certain was nowhere near ready for the job, and might never be.....," said Purdum's article.
If even McCain's senior advisors felt that way, then why does such a large segment of the news media today take Palin so seriously? She has not earned that and I don't think the public rates her that highly. It's all about ratings....but, this is how our political climate gets distorted and tainted. The only way Palin should be taken more seriously, as I said once, is after she pays a lot more dues and proves she has what it takes.

I hope the coverage of Michael Jackson's death can wind down -- at some point. Now that the memorial service was held, one would hope the Jackson story could diminish a bit. Why do I have a sneaky suspicion that new angles to this story will surface and re--surface in the months ahead? I got a bad feeling when I saw the aerial shots of the vehicle carrying Jackson's casket to the service. It reminded me, for a split second, of the coverage of OJ Simpson in the Bronco chase back in 1994. The networks' news divisions went way overboard with the Jackson story, but, we shall see if the story can be covered more in context now. I doubt it. It's too irrestible for the sensational core of cable TV news today.

I hope Joe Biden can somehow suddenly learn to refrain from making impulsive, inaccurate, off-the-cuff remarks that cause potential problems for the Obama administration. We knew Biden had this habit, but, I didn't expect him to have "mis-spoken" on so many occasions in the first six months. Within the past few days, Biden made two verbal blunders back-to-back. First, he said the Obama administration had "misread how bad the economy was." President Obama, in a later attempt to correct the record, said he'd rather say that his administration had had "incomplete information." Then, in a more serious gaffe, Biden said the US would not stand in the way of Israel potentially deciding to bomb Iran's site(s) of its nuclear program. Biden stressed that the US could not dictate to a sovereign nation (Israel) a decision on such a matter. Obama, again, later was forced to clean up Biden's mess by saying the US had NOT given Israel any "go-ahead" and continued to seek a diplomatic solution to the topic of Iran's nuclear capability.
It seems, as time passes, Biden is showing his longtime predisposition for craving headlines and "shooting from the hip" as a way to draw attention. The difference is that now Biden's restlessness and "hot dog" tendencies can undermine the President - and do more damage.

I hope Raphael Nadal's tendinitis in his knees improves so that we all might be treated to a few more terrific Grand Slam finals between Nadal and Roger Federer. After watching the fantastic Wimbledon finals match between Federer and Andy Roddick, the only element missing was Nadal. As someone who just discovered Federer a couple of years ago after many years of not watching tennis, I hope we can all see a few more great Federer-Nadal matches in the next year or two. With Federer "finding himself" again, let's hope Nada returns to full-strength and this incredible rivalry lasts a bit longer.

President Obama may have his flaws, but, every once in a while, I pause and think about the many important ways in which he is a better President than George W. Bush, and, it blows me away. There are a lot of matters for the President to deal with now - both domestically and in foreign policy - and, I think it's helpful to remember what the state of affairs might be if the Bush-Cheney adminstration were still in office.

It will be very interesting to see if Charlie Baker can be a compelling candidate for governor of Massachusetts. Baker, who announced his candidacy yesterday, has very impressive credentials for the job. Unlike many candidates, he has performed impressively in the public and private sector -- having been at the helm of Adminstration and Finance and Human Services when Bill Weld was governor - and as CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care. Further, Baker has displayed strength at both big-picture thinking and dealing with details of policy-setting. The question is: Can Baker learn and adjust to the rigors of campaigning and winning over voters in non-stop appearances on the stump? If he can do that, he'll pose a very tough challenge to incumbent Governor Deval Patrick.

I just read a Boston Globe article that suggested many people - including a high percentage of younger individuals - no longer like to use voice mail because it's outmoded and takes too long to play back messages. The article discussed that many people are shifting to using only text messages because it's simply quicker. They feel voice mail is inefficient and limited in what it provides. I guess I'm supposed to accept this, but, I do not. People feel it's a difficult burden to listen to a few voice mail messages? What? What kind of attention span will those under age 30 have as the years go by? I guess "delayed gratification" has given way to "instant gratification" in more & more parts of people's lives. I guess..........

I am amazed that so many big-name rock bands and artists who I grew up listening to in the 1960s are still performing. I'm talking about Bob Dylan, the Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, Chuck Berry, Crosby, Stills and Nash, Eric Clapton, John Fogarty and on and on. I just thought more of these performers would have retired. What I'm NOT as surprised by is that I still regard the 1960s as the "Renaissance" of rock and roll. There has never been a period since when original, fantastic songwriting and live music flourished as much.

I'm glad Bill Murray and Harold Ramis have, apparently, "made up" after having a "falling out" years ago --- and, are contemplating making a third edition of the movie, "Ghostbusters" with Dan Ackroyd. Bill Murray is my favorite comic - and Ramis has made some funny movies, himself. I hope they can collaborate more than once because they work well together. (They did in "Stripes" years ago).

Kudos to David Ortiz of the Red Sox, who has come back from the depths of the worst hitting slump of his career and has been more like his old self at the plate in recent weeks. Big Papi looked so bad swinging the bat for the first two months of the season that many people - including me - thought he was "done." Papi may not hit like he did in his prime, but, he has already proved people wrong. He didn't give up and it was inspiring to watch.

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!