Media Continues Its Distorted Coverage of Sarah Palin

This is how absurd American politics has become: I'm watching Chris Matthews' MSNBC show, Hardball, last Wednesday night. Matthews asked his guest, comedian Bill Maher, for his reaction to Sarah Palin these days.

Maher, in a serious reply, said he doesn't understand why the news media keeps treating Palin so seriously given that she's shown she's so unqualified. (for higher office).

Matthews then displayed his now-familiar contradictory treatment of Palin. First, he said things to imply that Palin was a legitimate story. He asked Maher how MSNBC could not cover Palin if she was drawing crowds to her rallies. (Maher caught Matthews off guard by saying he still thought the media should still not cover Palin).

Matthews laughed - as if Maher had said something outrageous .....but, in my view, Maher was right. Palin is so discredited that I don't care if she draws a crowd of right-wingers or Tea Party members. She's lost her credibility. She's said or done many things along her journey - from the 2008 presidential campaign to quitting as governor of Alaska to planning a "reality" show for FOX TV - that indicate she does not deserve to be taken seriously.

So, here was Bill Maher, a comic, displaying more common sense, truth-detecting, and, a journalistic outlook than Matthews. He seems to see Palin for who she is.

Then, Matthews, in the second part of his posture on Palin, spent the next few minutes sharing laughs with Maher about how paper-thin Palin's knowledge is on just about any topic. He said he got the impression that if Palin were asked any substantive questions on domestic or foreign policy topics, she'd be unable to discuss them in a knowledgeable, serious way. Maher agreed, adding he love to see Palin on the Jeopardy Show. He speculated she'd fail miserably. Matthews laughed away.

This little exchange between Matthews and Maher typifies the schizophrenic, inexcusable coverage of Palin since the 2008 presidential campaign.

The coverage seems to suggest, simultaneously that: 1) Palin is a largely discredited, former politician who a majority of Americans don't believe is qualified for higher office, but, 2) Despite that, Palin is an incredibly important public figure who we have to cover constantly - and, she may run for President someday.

What is this contradiction about? I've written about it before. The primary reason Palin is "covered" is because she attracts higher ratings - period. It's not because of her seriousness, her knowledge, her qualifications or her credibility. It's all about drawing viewers. (Her good looks and attention-grabbing little behaviors don't hurt, either)

So, the message here, in 2010, is: If you can get ratings, you're "in." You're hot. You have to be covered.

Think about others who follow this pattern: Glenn Beck certainly does. I refuse to watch him, but, from news accounts, he seems like an irresponsible jerk. Rush Limbaugh, for years, has been saying reckless, mean-spirited things that keep drawing attention, and, people keep rationalizing his excesses, as if to say "That's just Rush......." I could give other examples here. For example, the coverage of the Tea Party. The media doesn't seem to know what the Tea Party stands for - and, neither does the Tea Party.....but, as long as Tea Party figures - including Palin as a regular "guest spokeswoman," occasionally - provide "extreme" or "sensational" quotes or carry signs with hateful messages, it seems the media feels obligated to keep discussing this "movement."

Our Internet-dominated world - with multi-equipped cellphones and Blackberries and IPods and non-stop "news" -- has become so overloaded with information and "messages" that it seems both the news media and the public have lost perspective on the important distinction between news and entertainment. Sometimes, it seems, we hear more about American Idol than important international developments. There are so many "reality shows" that it makes some viewers, I fear, downplay the relevance of reality vs. fantasy. (No wonder Palin is planning a "reality" show. It makes sense, I guess....)

I believe our collective attention span as a society has gotten so low that people can gloss over or forget almost anything. Maybe that's why I've heard speculation that Eliot Spitzer is already contemplating a comeback in politics. It's been only two years, after all, that he was forced to resign as governor of New York when it was revealed he was a client in a prostitution ring. Former Vice President Richard Cheney regularly lambasted President Obama on his policies toward terrorism despite being a key player in the implementation of the US invasion of Iraq - an action that not only led to the unnecessary killing of thousands, but badly damaged the US' reputation throughout the world. Nevertheless, the media, instead of reminding audiences of Cheney's role in these matters, covered his "loaded" rhetoric in a straightforward way. In the end, Cheney was "entertaining." That was all that mattered.

Sometimes, I feel like collecting 50 or 75 examples of Sarah Palin's remarks or highlights of her actions and listing them chronologically in an article or blog in order to remind people of her flaws and limitations that so clearly disqualify her from serious consideration for higher office. These limitations should lead news media executives to choose to ignore her appearances.

I probably will gather those facts on Palin because I think it'd be a valuable exercise. If current trends continue, you and I will keep hearing about Palin in the years ahead - no matter how unimpressive she is.

One thing is clear, to me, at least: Palin is a creation of the media. She didn't "earn" her image. The media is responsible for her image, and, no matter what news executives or editors or reporters might say, it is the media who have chosen to not hold Palin accountable for all her mistakes, bad decisions, unsubstantiated or false remarks. So, if you're reading "news" stories in two years about how Palin has "emerged" as a compelling figure in American politics, just remember who propped her up and kept the "Palin fantasy" alive.

The days of Walter Cronkite saying "That's the way it is" are over. Things are, in fact, not as they appear to be in 2010.

Obama Should Remain Firm With Israel

"US, Israel still at odds over Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem"

When I just read that headline on an April 8th A.P. story, I was more glad than upset.

Why? Because it indicates the Obama Administration, so far, is standing its ground in its position against Israel's plans to build new housing in East Jerusalem. That's refreshing because most U.S. presidents, after an episode such as this, give in to Israeli pressure and take the safe, easy way out. History suggests Obama, too, will, eventually, find his own way to be overly accommodating to Israel in the days ahead.

Yet, for the past several weeks, Obama has maintained his position - which appears justified, well-timed and one that sends an appropriate signal to Israel.

It was nearly a month ago that shortly after Vice President Joe Biden arrived in Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced plans to build 1600 new housing units in East Jerusalem. Biden condemned Israel's announcement. Other Obama officials ripped Israel's move, thus kicking off a rift between the United States and Israel in recent weeks.

The Obama Administration has tried to persuade Netanyahu to halt new settlements on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem in an effort to lay the groundwork for peace negoatiations with the Palestinians, who view these occupied territories - along with the Gaza Strip - as the site of their future state. Netanyahu disregarded the US wishes pertaining to the West Bank by restraining, but not fully freezing, new settlements, and, in recent weeks, has signaled no change in Israel's plans in East Jerusalem.

There are many reasons why Netanyahu's position is a troubling obstacle to peace. The largest, indisputable reason is that East Jerusalem is an occupied territory that Israel annexed after the 1967 war and that no other country has recognized it as part of Israel.

According to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the UN Charter and UN Resolution 252, Israel's planned construction in East Jerusalem would be, in fact, illegal, because of East Jerusalem's "occupied" status. The reason many people aren't aware of that is that the mainstream media incorporates a regular bias in its coverage that is slanted toward Israel. Thus, in many references, articles have referred to Netanyahu's claim that Jerusalem is Israel's capital or defenders of Israel have tried to argue, lamely, that the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, passed by the US Congress, essentially states that Jerusalem shall be undivided.

The only problem is that while the US Congress approved the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital, that Act is not the foreign policy of the US. It has never been implemented by Presidents Clinton, Bush or Obama - and - as stated previously, it's not the policy of other countries across the world to recognize East Jerusalem as part of Israel.

So, Netanyahu's stubborn stance to build 1600 new units there is obstructionist - period. How can Netanyahu be regarded as interested in peace while he's openly, repeatedly thumbing his nose at the Palestinians, who see East Jerusalem as the potential capital of their new state? He's thumbing his nose at the Obama Administration, which has said, clearly, that Israel must halt its settlement policy as a precondition to peace talks. Further, Netanyahu, is, arrogantly, disregarding international law and policy that applies to East Jerusalem.

What's disturbing is that if one reviews media coverage, you'd never know that the UN and the Fourth Geneva Convention do not recognize East Jerusalem as part of Israel. Those who follow the Middle East know this, but, most people read about Netanyahu's claims and they don't understand how outrageously false and unfair they are. Journalists for many years seem to follow a ridiculous, ill-conceived practice of including "both sides" in their stories - even when there are not two sides. This story of planned new housing in East Jerusalem is a good example of this. Israel is out of line here. Israel has no good defense for its actions - besides dampening any hopes for a peace process. I don't think Netanyahu wants a serious peace process, anyway, do you?

What has troubled me is to witness the extent of criticism of President Obama's stance toward Israel on this housing issue. Apologists have said Obama went "way too far" in his response to Israel. The President met with Netanyahu in at the White House in March, and, reportedly left the discussions to be with his family while Netanyahu conferred with his staff on the lower level of the White House. Later, the two men met only briefly before Netanyahu left, and, apparently, reached no resolution of their dispute.

Good for Obama. Perhaps he can be firmer with Israel than his predecessors. I think he's chosen a good moment to stand up to Netanyahu, who has acted badly and provocatively.

In order to stand his ground, Obama will have to ignore the many irrational, pro-Israeli critics, who whine about every little slight or mistreatment they can identify. It's hard to understand why so many critics of Obama's team have chosen to defend Israel in light of Netanyahu's recent actions.

Some observers say the rift between the US and Israel is one of the worst in many years, but, I'd argue that it's critical for the US to maintain its position -- to send a signal to Israel and the rest of the world that it's trying a new approach in the Middle East.

Politicians and people must end the longstanding habit of remaining silent when Israel does something wrong. If Israel wants peace, it should reverse its housing plans in East Jerusalem.

I hope Obama keeps pushing for that because, while the standoff may delay progress, in the end, the only way genuine peace talks can happen is for Israel to get off its high horse, acknowledge realities on the ground and make a few concessions of its own.

The Cowardly, Ugly Outlook of Republicans

I don't understand how anyone can be proud to be a Republican in this country today.

It's bad enough that the Republican Party stands for almost nothing good and constructive anymore. It has truly become "the Party of NO." Its leaders in the US House and Senate spend most of their time trying to undermine President Obama's agenda rather than offering proposals to help the country. Republicans are obsessed with attacking the federal government (that they were elected to serve and improve!). One of their only never-ending priorities is to propose cutting taxes -- which exemplifies their lack of leadership, initiative or backbone. Republicans show far too little compassion for people who need the most help.

Unfortunately, this pathetically empty agenda of Republicans is not even their worst feature.

No, their "low point" - on display the past two days - is allowing themselves to be associated with the ugly displays of hate, racism and division that some of their supporters have expressed in protests and demonstrations. Pockets of the Tea Party gathering, in Washington DC to protest the passage of health care reform, were in repulsive form the past few days as they carried signs with hateful messages, including one with President Obama with a Hitler mustache drawn on his face. More than one Tea Party member called Rep. John Lewis, (D-Ga) the n-word. One or more other Tea Party protesters called US Rep. Barney Frank, (D-Ma.) the f-word. Protesters spit on Rep. Emanuel Cleaver on the Capitol steps.

Some Republicans, on this occasion - like others - when asked, gave their opinion that these actions were out of line, but no Republican leader stepped up to a microphone to give important, somber remarks that loudly, clearly condemned the ugly remarks of the protesters. No one seems willing to blast the Tea Party - even though some of the Tea Party members absolutely have deserved to be ripped repeatedly for their outrageous, reckless, ugly actions in some of these protest gatherings during the past year. A chunk of them seem to come just to protest President Obama - period, and, yes, a segment, however small - seems to have had racist inclinations. This repulsive segment of the Tea Party has gotten incredibly soft treatment from the mainstream media, who keep treating the party as if it has serious, noble intentions. The Tea Party can't even seem to even articulate its purpose. All its members seem to know is they show up to put down the federal government and Barack Obama and anything that appears to be " a government takeover" even if, in fact, it is NOT that. They display no intelligence or thoughtfulness whatsoever. Why have they been given so much time on the TV news?

Well, one can find common threads between the narrowminded motives of Tea Party members and the comments of several of the leading, right-wing television and radio commentators since the US House voted to pass health care reform.

"We need to defeat these bastards," said Rush Limbaugh. "We need to wipe them out. Defeat the Democrats, every one of them who voted for this bill."

Yet, you never hear one Republican just rip into Limbaugh and call him the irresponsible windbag that he is. They're afraid of Limbaugh. What a joke! It's also a disgrace because they're seriously afraid of Limbaugh because they fear, criticizing him might lose them votes. All they care about is protecting their jobs and towing the reactionary line.

Limbaugh ripped Bart Stupak, (D-Mich) for reaching an agreement at the 11th hour with the Obama team that led to Stupak and several other anti-abortion US Representatives to vote for the health care bill as the result of Obama agreeing to sign an executive order saying that no federal funds would fund abortions. Limbaugh compared Stupak's vote to Neville Chamberlain's false assurances about winning a peace treaty with Hitler in 1938. That's really accurate, Rush!

Glenn Beck spewed out some typically reckless rants. He remarked, to Democrats, "Our master is common sense and God. I don't think right now you have either one on your side." Then, Beck said, in the fall elections, the choice will be: "Are you an American or are you a mouse? Are you and American or a European?"

Beck, as usual, was filled with words to inspire us and unite as -- in mature fashion.

On the floor of the House, someone yelled out "Babykiller" when Stupak was addressing his colleagues from the podium.

The problem with the Republicans is that there is a thin line between the more wild, crazy hateful behavior outside and the rhetoric used by some Republican members of the House and Senate inside. So, for instance, some Tea Party protesters outside of the Capitol pointedly shouted "You Lie" as a "rallying cry" that honored US Representative Joe Wilson's outburst at President Obama during the State of the Union. They're rallying around a guy who showed gross disrespect for the President in an unprecedented way. What terrific taste, Tea Party members! How stupid you are! How repugnant you are!

Meanwhile, a hanfuld of Republican US congressional members could be seen in television news footage waving to the Tea Party protesters and "urging them on" from the top roof-level at the US Capitol.

So, where were the Republican leaders to condemn these outrageous actions on the periphery of their work in the Capitol? Like I said, they commented only if reporters found them. Meanwhile, Republican leaders were not exactly exhibiting good sportsmanship and class.

Senator John McCain, the Republicans' unsuccessful presidential nominee in 2008, exuded leadership with this remark:

"There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," McCain said during a radio interview Monday. "They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."

Gosh, that's great, Senator. At least you're being open and straightforward about your intentions to not try to get anything done now. His constituents should vote McCain out of office for such an irresponsible remark. (No, I'm not expecting that!)

How about Mitt Romney, another Republican presidential candidate in 2008? What did he have to say? Romney, in typical Republican understatement, called the health care reform bill "an unconscionable abuse of power." An abuse of power. No, Mitt, go back to your dictionary on this: The Watergate coverup was an abuse of power. Dick Cheney engaged in more than one "abuse of power," but, the Democrats' winning an open vote is what happens in a democracy.
A democracy that elected Barack Obama, who campaigned to fight for health care reform.

I could go on and on. I could mention the Tea Party signs calling Obama's reforms "Socialism"
Or, the never-ending attempts of Tea Party members and other right-wing nuts, including some racists, to create fear and anxiety around Obama. I wonder why this "new" group of white protesters has appeared out of the blue in the past 18 months to protest any initiative of President Obama's? Why do they have an anger - an inflamed, sour mood as they hold these protests? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that at least a few racists are able to have some influence. Otherwise, why would ugly signs show up? Why would ugly remarks get made?

Enough! I am sick of it. I wish the rest of us could start a movement to put these Tea Party protesters and their Republican "enablers" in their place.

It's time to put the reckless segment among these protesters in their place. The police need to be on alert and prevent any potential violence. And, it'd help if the network news stopped treating them as if they're serious. They have not earned the right to be treated seriously

Obama Seems a Pushover. That Needs to Change

I have not wanted to believe this about Barack Obama, but, it seems he doesn't know how to assert himself. He surely doesn't act assertive enough publicly for a President of the United States.

Hey, I don't know what goes on behind closed doors at the White House. Maybe Obama sends strong signals to his advisors and all the people he sees every day. I'm still in the first part of Game Change, so, perhaps I'll find get new glimpses of his personality by the time I finish it.

But, I've run out of patience waiting for Obama to show signs that he can tell people off. That he can say "No" - and mean it - to a constituency. That he can strongly disagree with someone or some group - and stick to his guns rather than waffle or backtrack.

When does Obama mean business? When does he show he's so strong in his convictions that he will not give in on principle?

When is there a consequence to someone publicly disregarding Obama, verbally attacking Obama or acting in ways to hurt Obama's presidency? I haven't seen such consequences initiated by Obama.

I'd like to learn, just once, that Obama's response to hearing some unfair, untrue, but damaging remark by a politician is to snap back and call that person on the carpet! Obama knows how to debate. Does he think it's "undignified" for him to defend himself and hold someone else accountable? Whatever his inhibitions are, he simply doesn't do it.

What's troubling is that we saw rather glaring signs of this Obama tendency during the 2008 presidential campaign. Time after time, one of his opponents would make reckless, deceitful remarks about Obama or his record, and Obama would wait.....and wait.....and wait until either several days or a week would pass, and, much damage had been done. If Obama had responded quickly and strongly to some of these attacks - including a regular barrage of misleading content spewed by Hillary Clinton's campaign - he'd have done better, I think. In fact, I'd argue he might have finished Clinton off a bit earlier in the primaries and slowed some of the shallow, unjustified media celebration of Sarah Palin supposedly "lifting" John McCain's campaign.

Obama, instead, plodded along and won a remarkable race - in his own way. He let a lot of the most reckless attacks go. (Remember all the harping about William Ayers, for example?)

But, now, Obama is President and his campaign persona is not serving him as well over time. He seems too soft, too "agreeable," too malleable, more diplomatic than Presidential.

Obama and his team don't "get it" -- yet. Obama has to act more in charge. He has to tell people what to do and what will happen rather than acting so passive - as if he's swept up in Washington forces beyond his control. Plus, he must act like he's unafraid to alienate and anger interest groups, institutions, powerful individuals and people he knows well. He can show that to us by not only being more decisive, but, when he encounters partisan bickering, whining responses or reckless remarks, he can speak up - with force - and say, "I disagree with you and here's why: Boom, boom, boom" If you want to debate it, I challenge you......I'm confident my approach will work and I intend to convince the Congress of that.....Meanwhile, I ask you to stop making unsubstantiated, thoughtless remarks. They help no one."

OK...I'm fantasizing a bit here, but, Obama doesn't seem to realize that if he creates an appearance that other people can push him around, there are damaging ramifications to that image. People like to think their President will stand up for himself, and, refuse to take too much crap from others. Remember Ronald Reagan? Like him or not, the Gipper created an aura that he knew how to say NO and did it his way.

I ask you: During the completely out-of-control health care debate, did Obama display leadership, particularly a capacity to stand up for himself and his beliefs? He was awful in that regard! People, organizations, the right-wing attacked him relentlessly for months - especially last summer, when the Tea Party crowd got intense and ugly. Obama must have thought he'd benefit by taking the "high road" again. He said far too little -- and the health care bill essentially got taken over by others.

Even with simple things, Obama lets himself look weak. Recently, he made a big deal of anouuncing a deadline for the US Senate to take their big vote on the health care bill. Shortly afterward, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi indicated she didn't agree on the deadline and that more time may be necessary. For several days, this difference lingered publicly. Doesn't the Obama team realize that Pelosi undercuts him by doing that? Why don't they tell her to stop doing that?

I realize Obama's team cannot control everyone and everything, but this sort of disagreement on the timing of health care votes has happened before - and hurt Obama. If Obama does not know how to run a tight ship, then he should bring in some seasoned Washington veterans to help him do it. It's silly to see Pelosi or Reid, who are supposed be "allies," undercut the President's cause.

Obama's failure to assert himself has shown up in virtually every setting and context. First, Obama has not let us see him acting decisively in his own White House. Second, he has come off as a weak pushover in his relationship with the US House and Senate. Obama has allowed a perception to build - probably accurate - that he fails to lead the Congress, that Representatives and Senators often do not take him seriously. They seem to lack respect for him and their loyalty to him seems limited - even in such a short time. Members of Congress seem to feel they can do and say whatever they want - without consequences or fallout from the Obama Administration. They do not fear President Obama.

I'm not advocating government by fear. I just sense that Obama should be concerned about his authority and clout appearing this diminished this early in his first term.

Look at other examples.

• Have we heard of anecdotes about the President taking firm positions and holding people accountable with regard to his own Cabinet secretaries or members of his staff? Can somebody tell me when that has happened, in a significant way, during his first 15 months as President?
• How can so many stories appear recently that raised questions about Rahm Emanuel and his role as chief of staff without anyone from the Obama team weighing in? Some views associated with Emanuel in these articles made Obama look bad, but, again, there was silence. I think Obama would've benefited by saying something assertive.
• I'm not focusing just on his staff. In the debate on financial regulation, has Obama warned banking executives or CEOs of the consequences of they're repeating reckless, selfish activities such as giving themselves bonsues,etc? It seems all I've read about is corporate executives ignoring the Administration and Congress and doing whatever they please - even after the economy was on the verge of collapse last year. And why isn't Obama more vocal in insisting that financial regulation legislation stay strong rather than get watered down and weakened by Congressional committees? Where is Obama's backbone here?
• On Afghanistan: I liked Obama's careful deliberations before his decision to send 30,000 additional troops - which I totally opposed, but, what's striking is that Obama - again - didn't let us see how he led on this matter. What we saw was General McCrystal irresponsibly make public remarks about why the Administration had to send troops. Then we heard Obama met with McCrystal, but, Obama team chose to keep that private. Then, Obama made his decision, which pleased McCrystal. Then, within days of Obama's big speech on Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made public remarks about how - in actuality, the troops probably would not come home as soon as the President said. Obama, meanwhile, said nothing. He appeared much weaker than he realized. It seemed Gates and Clinton were speaking with more authority than Obama. How could the President and his team not "get" that?
• With Iran, Obama advocated engagement. Then, he talked tough when he learned Iran was proceeding with development of its nuclear capacity, but, in recent months, what has Obama said or done to send a clear, forceful signal of the US position on Iran? Yes, I know Clinton and others have made public remarks, but too long a period has passed, when, again, Obama has created an impression of passivity. Iran, meanwhile, has gotten itself in the news constantly in recent days. The image is that Iran is doing what it wants with no consequence whatsoever.
• Obama has allowed this massive anti-government sentiment (in the US) to mushroom partly because he and his team have spent way too little time asserting how and why much of their proposed "government intervention" was necessary and is not a "government takeover." Similarly, the Administration has not asserted or demonstrated sufficiently how it will reduce the incredible debt it is contributing to through its programs.
• Obama has been so wishy-washy on the Middle East that Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has taken advantage of him. Netanyahu has ignored US wishes by continuing to allow Israeli settlements to be established in occupied territories. When Israel announced recently that 1600 new homes were to be constructed in east Jerusalem at the same time Vice President Joe Biden arrived for a visit, it showed how unafraid Netanyahu is of Obama. Biden and Clinton have voiced appropriate criticisms of Israel's actions, but, now, with Israel whining that the response was too severe, already, there are signs of the Obama Administration capitulating. When is Obama going to put a stake in the ground and leave it there - even when it angers or disappoints someone like Netanyahu?

Sooner or later, I hope Obama realizes he must become more assertive. If not, I fear he'll lose his effectiveness and be voted out of office after only one term. I realize that Barack Obama may just not have the constitutional make-up to be more of a "street-fighter." But, I think he's trying to succeed in a way that may be impossible. He insists on putting out a publicly "harmonious" image even when there is often disharmony all around him. He keeps insisting on staying "in the middle" on issues and trying to split differences even when one side is more "right" than the other. He keeps talking about bipartisanship when the Republican Party only takes action after action to disrupt and destroy his presidency.

It's time for Obama to make large adjustments. If he doesn't have the personality to take on more of his adversaries, then he should bring in some new allies who can do if for him.

I think that's the way Obama should go -- to hire a new top advisor (or two or three) to help him manage his vast agenda so that he can address "the big picture." Obama is so multi-talented that - like Bill Clinton - he can involve himself in the micro and macro aspects of his job; however, Obama has shown his greatest talents are in handling the "big picture" aspects of leadership. When Obama gave his big speech in Cairo, for example. He is outstanding when he paints in his broadest strokes and looks at how countries and peoples and purpose are all interwoven.

Obama has said he admired how Reagan influenced public attitudes and effected change - even though he differed with him politically. Well, Reagan had some top staff around him that knew how to manage the White House.

I think Obama needs new help in his inner circle. Hell, he needs help in simply learning how to assert himself.

Why didn't Braintree Police tell the rest of the story?

Two cops who worked for the Braintree police department back on Dec. 6, 1986 have completely different versions of what happened that day, when Amy Bishop was brought in for questioning after she shot and killed her younger, teenage brother, Seth.

One of the cops was involved in capturing Bishop after she fled from her home, the scene of the shooting. His name is Ron Solimini. His version seems believable.

The other cop was the Chief of the Braintree police at the time. His name is John Polio. His version, which has included a few variations in recent news reports, seems very hard to believe.

The extent to which these two cops' stories differ illustrates how large and disturbing a gap remains at the core of the accounts of how the Braintree police responded in 1986. Indeed, it helps explain why Norfolk District Attorney William Keating recently requested that Quincy District Court Judge Mark Coven conduct an inquest into Seth Bishop's death.

Ron Solimini is a Braintree cop who, with fellow cop Timothy Murphy, apprehended and handcuffed Amy Bishop soon after she had shot and killed her younger brother, Seth on Dec. 6, 1986. Minutes earlier, Bishiop had pointed her shotgun at two employees of a nearby auto dealership's auto body shop and demanded a getaway car. Solimini wrote a police report that described how he and Murphy captured Bishop. After Solimini returned to the police station, his lawyer told reporters recently, he recalled that Braintree police Lt. James Sullivan, who was questioning Bishop, had received a phone call and was told by the police chief, or, a commanding officer, to release Bishop without any charges. It appeared that police higher-ups had concluded that Seth Bishop's death was "accidental."

John Polio, now 87, is the former police chief who was in charge that day. He says he didn't know anything about Bishop's wild, gun-wielding actions that followed her killing her brother. In fact, Polio says he knew nothing about that disturbing sequence of events until just recently - in 2010, when he read the police reports for the first time. So, he's claiming, for the past 23 years, he knew nothing about what Bishop did after fleeing from her home. Polio has also denied that he halted the questioning of Bishop back on Dec. 6, 1986 or that he released her. In one account, he said Capt. Theodore Buker released Bishop. Yet, Solimini recalled Amy's mother, Judy, arriving at the station and asking to speak to Polio minutes before Bishop was ordered released.

How could Polio have been unaware of Solimini's account of what happened? It makes no sense.

Polio is suggesting that Solimini and Murphy's catching of Bishop was never communicated to him in any way - either by the two cops themselves or anyone else in his police department. How could, he, the chief, not be updated on the pursuit of Bishop? How could he not be told that Bishop pointed a loaded shotgun at two of his own cops?

Polio was quoted in a February, 2010 newspaper article as claiming he also knew nothing about Bishop pulling her shotgun on Thomas Pettigrew, one of two men at an auto dealership shortly after killing her brother. Pettigrew was interviewed a few weeks ago in Boston television news reports.

"All of this is new to me," Polio told the Patriot Ledger in a Feb. 16th article. "If it did happen, why didn't anyone come forward in 1986?"

Well, that's not only embarrassing, but, astounding given that his own cops "came forward" when they returned to the police department with Bishop in handcuffs. They wrote about what happened in their police report, including Bishop's pulling her gun on the auto shop employees.

Of course, Polio, mysteriously, says he never read the police reports - until just recently (in 2010), when they were found - after a search - by current Braintree cops. They had been "missing" for about 23 years.

Perhaps we'll get a better explanation after the inquest of this case is held. But the potential consequence of the Braintree police "overlooking" Amy Bishop's gun-wielding actions after she fled from her home are enormous. Keating said recently he would have charged Bishop for (her actions at the auto dealership) assault with a dangerous weapon, unlawful possession of a gun and illegal possession of ammunition. Maybe these charges would've impacted Bishop, and, somehow prevented the path that led her to kill her University of Alabama colleagues many years later.

Further, why would the Braintree police not consider what Bishop's post-shooting "rampage," said about her "state of mind" relative to shooting Seth? Maybe she was primarily "troubled mentally," but, then again, she was seeking a getaway car and threatening violence.

Bishop, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, is now in jail after being charged with killing three of her colleagues and seriously injuring three others after opening fire at a Feb. 12th faculty meeting.

The puzzle of how and why the accounts of Solimini and Polio vary to such an extreme was on display when Braintree Police Chief Paul Frazier, held a press conference a few days after Bishop's murder of her colleagues in Alabama.

"I don't want to use the word 'cover-up,' but I don't know what the thought process was of the police chief at the time," Frazier said.

Frazier, in unusually candid comments, said that members of the Braintree police back in 1986 were "not happy" with the decision to release Bishop on Dec. 6, 1986.

Solimini's lawyer, Frank MGee, recently went further when he said Solimini "just feels that looking back on it, even today, nobody would ever walk out of a station having shot and killed somebody without some further investigation."

Yet, under Polio's leadership, the police openly seemed to put the interests of Amy Bishop and her family ahead of seeking and sharing the truth about her shooting her brother. The police seemed in a rush to let Bishop walk away free on Dec. 6, 1986, and then, in no rush at all to continue their interview of Amy. The Braintree police allowed 11 days to pass before asking Amy and her family members more questions about Amy's killing her brother.

One of those participating in that interview was State Trooper Brian Howe, whose "jurisdiction" included being "on call" to assist the Braintree police on a case such as Seth Bishop's shooting. Howe's report, completed in late March, 1987, included no mention of any of Amy Bishop's actions that followed her killing Seth.

Howe said recently he knew nothing about Bishop pulling a gun on people after she shot Seth. He said that despite his requesting Braintree police reports, Braintree P.D. never provided him any. He wrote his report based on "the word" of the Braintree police and concluded Seth Bishop's death was "accidental".

Indeed, Howe's report fails to address many unanswered questions about the shooting and the police response to it. Howe's report, in fact, prompts additional questions. For example, Howe said that a Braintree police captain told him that Bishop was too emotional to answer questions after the shooting, but Keating said his recent probe revealed that Bishop was "calm, collected and answering questions," according to the Feb. 26th Patriot Ledger. Plus, Lt. James Sullivan, who was questioning Bishop, did not mention Bishop's emotional state then, the Ledger reported.

"I think it's a valid conclusion that they did not give me the reports for a reason," Howe told the Boston Globe, in an article published March 2nd.

Many have criticized Howe for not going to the scene of the shooting and for not reviewing the local police reports. Howe, apparently, didn't interview Solimini.

Likewise, the Norfolk District Attorney's office has been criticized for doing virtually nothing to probe the matter.

Frazier, at his February, 2010 press conference, admitted that the story he had just learned was "a far different story" than what was reported back then." (in 1986)

A reporter asked Frazier if one should conclude that the version given (to the press or public) back in 1986 was "fabricated."

"I would have to see the story," Frazier replied, "but, from what I'm hearing, it's not accurate."

That is, unfortunately, an understatement. The Braintree police didn't let the true, full story out back in 1986. Let's hope we get the accurate story someday.

Mystery Abounds in the Amy Bishop Case

I do not follow 99 out of 100 murder stories, but I'm now following every single development in the bizarre, "Hitchcock-type" case of Amy Bishop. This true tale is as gripping as it is disturbing.

Bishop, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, is charged with killing three of her colleagues and seriously injuring three others after opening fire at a Feb. 12th faculty meeting. This shocking event feels even more tragic when one learns more about Amy Bishop's past, and, gets a real impression that her life might have unfolded very differently if people - particularly certain police officers - had treated her differently many years ago.

I'm referring mainly to the alarmingly inept and mysterious response of the Braintree, MA. police (and the state police detective involved) back in 1986, after Bishop had shot and killed her teenage brother, Seth, at their home in Braintree. The Braintree police made an irresponsibly quick determination that it was an "accidental" death without completing a thorough investigation. They released Bishop a few hours after the shooting even though she had left the scene and pulled her shotgun on two citizens and a Braintreee police officer before, finally, surrendering to police.

On Feb. 25th, Norfolk County district attorney William Keating, thankfully, requested that an inquest be conducted into the death of Seth Bishop and said it's possible the process might lead to a homicide charge against Amy. Hopefully, the inquest will help explain large, inexcusable gaps in the police's public accounting - so far- of their treatment of Amy Biship.
Meanwhile, when I read a few of the public police reports done after Seth Bishop's death in 1986, I was amazed to learn how many puzzling, troubling pieces of the story exist beyond the parts of the story that have become known.

The following are just ten points - among many - about this 1986 incident and the police response to it - that I think are noteworthy, and, have been overlooked in news stories:

1. Amy Bishop, in an interview with Braintree police, said that immediately after shooting her brother, she left her home without knowing she had shot and killed him. According to the March 30, 1987 report written by State Trooper Brian Howe, Amy Biship "thought she had ruined the kitchen, but was not aware of the fact that she had struck her brother with the shotgun discharge."

Huh? I guess Amy could've been traumatized and blotted that out, but, it seems beyond belief that even a mentally ill or shocked human being could be unaware whether her gunshot had hit her brother who was in close proximity.

2. Just prior to killing her brother, Amy apparently fired one shot from the same shotgun while in her room upstairs and later, police found a bullet hole in the wall. In an interview Dec. 17, 1986, Amy's mother, Judy, was asked if she'd heard any shots from the upstairs prior to Amy shooting her brother, and she said no, "but, she believed that the house was relatively well sound-proofed and that such a discharge would not necessarily be heard on another floor of the house."

What? How could anyone NOT hear a shotgun blast from upstairs? And, then choose that moment to assert how "soundproof" the house is?

3. Amy Bishop, immediately after shooting her brother, went to an auto dealership not far away and pointed her gun at two employees and demanded a car. Shortly after that, two Braintree police officers apprehended her near a local store. A police report stated that while one cop tried to reason with Amy and asked her to drop her rifle, the other police officer drew his revolver and "yelled three times for her to 'Drop the rifle' and after the third time, she did." In a Feb. 24th Boston Herald column, one of those two officers recounted how Bishop had pointed her shotgun at him.

4. The police took Amy back to the Braintree police station and were in the process of interviewing her about the shooting of her brother when suddenly their interview was cut short. There are at least two different versions as to exactly how it was stopped.
In one version, one of the cops, Lt. John Sullivan, wrote a report stating that he asked Amy questions, and, then, his report stated: "I asked her if she shot her brother on purpose and she said no." At that point, her mother came into the booking room with Sgt. Brady and mother said she didn't want her to make any further statement or be asked any more questions.." Amy agreed and Lt. Sullivan left to consult with other police. It was determined no charges would be brought against Amy.
In the other version, current Braintree Chief Paul Frazier said he was told recently that the then-lieutenant reponsible for booking Bishop received a phone call from Chief John Polio, or, someone calling on his behalf, requesting the booking to stop. Then, Amy was released to her mother and they left.

This outcome was unacceptable. The police put the Bishops' wishes ahead of their investigation.

5. State Police Trooper Howe, in his March, 1987 report, said that due to the "highly emotional state" of Amy Bishop after she was brought to the police station, it had been impossible to question her; hence, she was released to her mother. Howe, continuing in his report, stated that it was decided to arrange interviews at a later time, "allowing witnesses a sufficient time to stabilize their emotions."

So, allowing Amy (or, perhaps her mother) to calm down was viewed, apparently, as more urgent than getting to the truth and/or, getting Amy an appropriate psychiatric evaluation and treatment. If the police were so struck by and concerned with Amy's emotional state, why would they not try to transport her to a facility where she could receive urgently-needed help, and, they'd be taking an appropriate step to further their investigation.

6. The Braintree police then, for unknown reasons, waited 11 days before interviewing Amy Bsihsop and her mother, the only witness to the shooting.

Was this because the cops simply & blatantly decided to accept Judy Bishop's explanation of Amy's "accidental" shooting without checking facts? Or, were other factors involved?

7. Braintree's chief of police in 1986, Ron Polio, has said recently he was unaware that Amy had pointed her gun toward two auto dealership employees or at his own police officers after she had shot her brother. Polio said he first learned about these actions by Amy when he first read the police reports within the past few weeks -- 23 years later. While Polio has recently spoken to reporters on a few occasions, he has failed to clearly explain how things got so messed up on his watch in Braintree.

How could his own cops - including two who put themselves in jeopardy to catch Amy at gunpoint - know about Amy's reckless actions without him knowing? Or, was he choosing to disregard Amy's behavior - perhaps for reasons not yet known?

8. It turns out Polio isn't the only law enforcement official who's claiming he never knew about Amy Bishop's pointing her gun at others after shooting her brother. The state trooper who wrote the March, 1987 report, Brian Howe, for still-unknown reasons, never included any information about this entire part of Amy Bishop's activities on Dec. 6, 1986.

Howe, now retired, has said virtually nothing in recent weeks. Delahunt said his office didn't know about Amy's other actions, but, this is hard to fathom given that Howe, who was Delahunt's office's liaison to Braintree, had worked with Braintree cops in investigating Seth Bishop's death. Interestingly, the Patriot Ledger, in its initial report of Seth's death, mentioned nothing about Amy's behavior after the shooting.

9) The police reports from the scene later were "missing" for 23 years; they turned up only in recent days in Braintree after Bishop's arrest for murder in Alabama.

10) In the newspaper reporting of recent weeks, there have been at least two references to the point that the decision to release Amy Bishop did not sit well with police in the department back in 1986.

Perhaps certain dissatisfied police officers wanted to talk to the press or public, but were "discouraged" from doing so? No one knows. No one has really opened up on all this.

................................................................................................................................................

There are many more unanwered questions about this 1986 shooting and I hope the inquest will cause more of the truth to surface. Right now, we know that the Braintree police failed to do their job properly. Maybe we'll learn more in the future about why and how that happened. Relatives and friends of the victims of Amy Bishop's Feb., 2010 killing of her colleagues at the University of Alabama in Huntsville might always wonder about what caused the apparent police negligence in Braintree.

Milbank Column On Emanuel Offers Rare Glimpse

Dana Milbank's February 21st Washington Post column defending White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel must have created a considerable stir among those in the President's inner circle and those who report on it.

Milbank not only makes a provocative argument that, despite his critics, Emanuel has been an invaluable influence on President Obama, who, Milbank says, has been hurt by not following more of Emanuels' advice, but Milbank goes further. Milbank includes a damaging characterization of Obama's other top advisors leaving readers to wonder just what is going on between Emanuel and his colleagues.

First, the column says:

"..Obama's first year fell apart in large part because he didn't follow his chief of staff's advice on crucial matters," wrote Milbank. "Arguably, Emanuel is the only person keeping Obama from becoming Jimmy Carter."

Milbank's piece, titled Why Obama needs Rahm at the top, argues that one reason Emanuel helps Obama is that while Obama is "airy and idealistic," Emanuel is "earthy and calculating."

Milbank says that Obama should have followed Emanuel's advice against trying to close Guantanamo Bay prision within a year; taken Emanuel's advice opposing scheduling a trial for Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York, and, perhaps most significant, followed Emanuel's recommendatation to split the health care reform bill into smaller bills - which would've had a much better chance for passage - rather than combining all elements into a larger less popular bill.

However, the point that likely shook things up in the Obama White House was this Milbank line:

"Obama's problem is that his other confidants - particularly Valerie Jarrett and Robert Gibbs, and, to a lesser extent, David Axelrod - are part of the Cult of Obama. In love with the president, they believe he is a transformational figure who needn't dirty his hands in politics..."

So, what the hell is going on here? Well, first, some perspective is essential. It's important to note that, for whatever the reasons, there have been remarkably few penetrating articles - like this column - about President Obama's inner circle. I refer not to "puff pieces" or features on the individual players, but, rather, articles that attempt to report on the dynamics and interplay between the advisors. During most administrations, by the time the President's first year has passed, there have been many articles that attempt to analyze the President's decisionmaking process and who plays what critical role among his top advisors.

Astonishing as it is, no one, still, really knows how Obama and his team make their biggest decisions. How does Obama get advice? Who does he trust most - across the board? Who does he rely on for various p0licy areas or kinds of situations? How do his top advisors get along?

Further, how does Emanuel fit into all this? Usually, the chief of staff has enormous influence over who gets access to the President; hence, Emanuel's personal relationships with the other top advisors are likely to swing things.

Which brings us back to Milbank's column. Why, after a year of discipline to keep things private, why is Milbank suddenly writing a piece that appears could have been written by Emanuel himself? Milbank denies talking to Emanuel for the column, but, his piece seemed to suggest Milbank had some first-hand familiarity with the subject.

So, I wonder how President Obama reacted to the column. Is it possible that our ever-serene President actually took Rahm to the woodshed over this? I doubt it. I bet Emanuel gave his version to Obama, who listened cooly before making a remark or two indicating his dissatisfaction. But, who knows? I wish we had a sense of this side of Obama. How does he feel about the loyalty of Emanuel or his other top advisors>

Let's face it: If, by chance, Obama cannot handle or lead his top advisors - including Emanuel - effectively - it bodes very poorly for the rest of his Presidency. Let's hope that's not so.

Emanuel had a reputation from Day One; he had a big ego; he could be a jerk at times; he was a no-nonsense, direct talker; he was a sharp strategist who knew Congress extremely well. Some believed he'd be capable of bringing some control and clout to the White House staff.

Who knows how he's fared? The extent to which he agrees of disagrees with Obama day-to-day or week-to week on policy, on approach, on strategy, on which people to work with or not

I've read many stories that suggested Emanuel has played a substantial role in trying to carry Obama's message or signals during the battle over health care reform to his former colleagues in the US House of Representatives or the US Senate. Emanuel has been described as the US Congress' key liaison to the White House, but, each time I've read these references, they've caused me concern. How can Emanuel be a good liaison to Congress while managing his duties as chief of staff? My own answer is: He couldn't do both well, really......and, while I know the White House has had other people performing that liaison function, all the focus has been on Emanuel.

It seems, at times, Emanuel alienates some members of Congress along the way. Should he even be in this role of spending time on Congressional matters? Well, my answer is conditional: He should be doing it only if the President and he have really been on the same page and communicating well about all matters relating to health care. I doubt that has been true.

This brings me my response to Milbank's other major point: That Jarrett, Gibbs and Axelrod have an inflated view of Obama and that this colors their entire treatment of him. My impression of the Obama White House, at this point, is that, yes, in fact, not enough of his advisors are speaking the truth to him about how he comes across and other matters. You get a sense that Obama desparately needs some plain, blunt talk from his advisors, best friends and family. Someone should tell him he's overexposed, for instance. Someone should tell him that when he makes a typical public appearance, he talks too long - period. Someone should tell him to stop making so many appearances across the country and to stop doing media interviews, but, when he does, they should add, he should stop coming across like he's "lecturing" or explaining his positions. He has to loosen up and describe his outlook more - to humanize his image.

I hope there are many more articles and columns like Dana Milbank's in the weeks aheaad. We all should know a bit more about how Obama makes decisions with his inner circle. The less it's a secret, the more it'll let people feel they know Obama a bit better, and he, needs to be better understood right now.

I'll go further by saying I hope Obama and his team leak exchanges from occasional meetings they participate in. Why? To give us examples of how Obama leads and how he runs meetings. People, after one year, still feel they don't know this young President. His irrational, irresponsible right-wing critics have painted a distorted portrait of him.

It's time for Obama and his closest staff to open up more. I give Dana Milbank credit for writing one column that shares his insight and opinions about how things have worked out with Emanuel and Obama. It might inspire more pieces like it - and we'd all benefit from it.

If a bit more reporting on the inner circle happens, I think it'd help the White House. If Obama's team keeps avoiding that coverage, one would have to ask: What are they trying to hide?

Obama Needs to Act More and Talk Less

To say that President Obama is "over-exposed" now - in Feb. 2010 - feels like a joke. It's an incredible understatement.

When is Obama going to stop talking to us? To reduce his campaign-style appearances each week? To reduce his seeming, non-stop availabilities to the media? To turn down a request for an interview with a network news show?

Obama's very high visibility has not only gotten ridiculous, but, I think it's hurting his presidency. I like Obama and I'm sick of seeing him! He has diminished the value of his public appearances by making them so frequently.

In fact, when I hear a White House correspondent utter a phrase like "Obama will be out pushing for health care reform....," my reaction now is to groan and wish he'd simply stay in the White House. I find it hard to believe that Obama and his team still think his constant appearances crusading for health care do the slightest good; the evidence is to the contrary. Any potential reform bill -- which will be watered-down and unambitious now - is dangling by a thread, with a huge risk of rejection. The Obama White House should de-emphasize their internal polls and apply common sense.

The American people want results right now. It's a rough time. Talk feels even more "cheap" and meaningless than usual.

There's another, more troubling aspect to this: Obama actually does seem too impressed with himself and his impact on people, in general. I didn't want to believe this, but, now, I've seen enough. Obama's top advisors seem to share this outlook, which I will not yet label "delusional," but, the symptoms need to fade away or I'm going to wonder who's perceiving a sufficient dose of reality in the White House.

There are many examples, but I'll cite one: Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts. The White House line afterward was that Brown was tapping into the same voter anger that Obama had tapped into during his 2008 presidential campaign. No, sorry, White House folks, but independents in Massachusetts were angry at YOU and how YOU'RE approaching things. You represent "The Government" now and "the country's direction," in general.

Now, I think Obama, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel and company are too intelligent to deny realities on the ground - and, perhaps their spin about Brown is strategic, but, it reflects a year-long tendency to be too slow to respond to public concerns that have deepened, and, evolved into anger and disgust with the Administration's approach. Much of the concern, it seems, is that the government is doing too much, spending too much and taking control of too many things.

How can this Administration have NOT picked up more on the obvious anti-government sentiment bubbling across this country? Yes, a chunk of it is unfairly and irrationally being directed at Obama, when, in fact, Obama HAD to get an economic stimulus passed and HAD to oversee government intervention with the banks and auto industry. But the sentiment is real.

I think the White House's overemphasis on the President's role as The Promoter, The Explainer, The Talker Who Can Provide Answers On Every Topic is a large part of the problem. Obama needs to stay in the Oval Office more. His team needs to expand and add some good experts who can also speak publicly on topics. (people NOT like Tim Geithner or Larry Summers) And, this White House - as I've said for a year - needs to find good "surrogates," or allies, who will serve as excellent spokespeople for the Administration's agenda. It should not always be Barack Obama doing the speaking!!!!!

Back in September, I wrote about Obama's overexposure and I quoted a piece by Howard Fineman of Newsweek, who observed that Obama seemed too impressed by the impact of his mere presence on the stage.

Fineman, in the Feb. 8, 2010 Newsweek, is still writing insightfully on this topic.

"...Most Americans like Obama as a person, and most want him to succeed as a president. But he has to remember that he's supposed to be a character in our story -- not the other way around...Unlike his perfectly placed memoirs, Obama's presidency is not a narrative whose plot he can dictate, or even control..."

I think Fineman is on the money. Obama and his team seem to have an inflated view of the President's capacities. When will it sink in with this team that Obama's appearances do NOT help solve real problems that their White House must tackle? I think people are "on" to the fact that Obama's oratory, while often terrific, may or may not be followed up with action.

In fact, it's in the area of taking ACTION that Obama seems to need the most help. He needs some "field generals" making the rounds on Capitol Hill, talking to members of the US Congress, staying in touch, and trying to maintain support for the White House's legislative priorities.

One would think - after the Administration's disastrous approach toward health care reform - that they'd try radically new approaches -- with new people in key assignments - at the start of 2010. The only step resembling this was the Obama team bringing back David Plouffe, former campaign manager in 2008, to oversee the Democratic National Committee's political handling of the 2010 congressional elections. But, I hope Plouffe ends up assisting in the White House more than focusing on elections.

What concerns me about Obama is that, after only a year, he's showing a few signs of distancing himself from the public - from realities in everyone's day-to-day world. I get a sense he's spending so much time around pollsters, policy wonks, military officials, and politicians when, he might benefit from hanging out at some bars, department stores and grocery stores and listen to what real people are saying. Example: Obama waited for months before he spelled out his Afghanistan policy and decision to send in 30,000 additional troops, but, in his announcement speech, he left out some basic, central facts -- as if to suggest "Well, they'll get the idea - It only matters if me and my team know what's really going on..." So, Obama never explained sufficiently why the US was sending all the troops to a country where Al Quaeda was no longer located. He didn't even try to explain large factors relating to Pakistan.

I hope Obama is not on a slippery slope of becoming more and more out of touch. What's ironic though is that when he goes out on his weekly "campaign" appearances to different parts of the country, he'd benefit more by going into the crowd and just listening rather than lecturing from the stage.

Obama needs to get off the stage - and stay off for a while. Then, when he returned, he could talk about what he'd gotten done in the intervening months. His appearance would have more value again.

Howard Zinn's Death

I haven't had many heroes during my adult life, but Howard Zinn was one of them.

Zinn died from a heart attack last week at the age of 87. The world doesn't feel quite the same without this truly extraordinary man.

A radical with a bold, original, alternative take on American history. An outstanding professor. A longtime, quintessential activist who never stopped fighting for social justice. A naturally captivating speaker - whether at a huge outdoor rally or in a lecture hall. A truth-seeking idealist. A prolific writer of articles and books. A playwright. A man with the courage of his convictions.

Zinn stood out - that's for sure.

In the past 30 years, Zinn attracted much attention for his best-selling book: A People's History of the United States. In fact, he just helped complete a documentary film production based on speeches excerpted from the book that were performed by well-know Hollywood actors. It was called The People Speak and aired on The History Channel in December, 2009.

I became acquainted with Zinn while I was an undergraduate student at Boston University from 1977 - 1979. I didn't know Zinn well on a personal level; I spoke with him one-on-one only a handful of times, including one unusual meeting in his office when I requested his advice. But, he certainly seemed like a decent, thoughtful man. I did grow very familiar with Zinn by observing him - at demonstrations, meetings and his involvement in campus politics.


I enrolled in Zinn's popular, large lecture course called "Law and Justice," and I vividly recall how surprised I was, when, at the start of one of the classes, Zinn suddenly announced that we would all be attending a demonstration, down the street, on the BU campus. I don't recall the subject of the rally, but I recall thinking: "Wow, this Zinn guy IS unusual. That took some chutzpah to just lead our entire, large lecture class to a protest rally without knowing anyone's reaction to his suggestion."

The incident was one of my many glimpses of Zinn's unconventionality. He was determined to give his students a different interpretation of public events and historical episodes. Zinn wanted us to raise questions and think about things from different angles - and he succeeded at it.

Zinn stood out at BU not only for his talents and approach, but, because he was one of only a few willing to publicly criticize the controversial BU President, John Silber. Silber and Zinn were polar opposites. Silber, a brilliant, tough-talking Texan, ran BU like a tyrant. Silber quashed whatever and whoever got in his way. He didn't tolerate dissent - period. Zinn was all about dissent - practicing it and teaching it.
Silber alienated virtually every constituency at BU. Large portions of the BU faculty and staff seemed intimidated by Silber - for good reason. He often fired people he disliked. Zinn, meanwhile, was one of the most popular professors on campus. He had become a "legend" of sorts for his left-wing positions and activism. Zinn had a very good sense of humor and often joked about people or institutions he ripped. (He made teaching his version of history fun and accessible). So, Zinn, on occasion, blasted Silber in spontaneous, candid phrases, but, often, he'd inject a bit of humor as well. To Zinn, Silber was a nearby representation of the kind of injustice he made it his business to oppose elsewhere. Zinn became the advisor to the student radical newspaper called BU Exposure - a newspaper Silber tried to hinder frequently.

Zinn surfaced in a variety of activities and forums to support anti-Silber sentiments that percolated regularly across BU. Zinn, for example, was a loyal, involved member of the BU faculty union and visible, active supporter of other labor unions on campus. For instance, Zinn was a leader in the 1979 faculty strike at BU, but, then, when the clerical workers, represented by District 65 of the SEIU, went out on strike months later, Zinn was one of only a few professors who absolutely refused to cross their picket lines. He held his classes outside or anywhere necessary to avoid crossing pickets. Silber, at times, seemed very annoyed by Zinn.

There were two occasions - once in 1976 and once in 1979 - when there were campus-wide efforts to remove Silber as BU President.
I'll never forget the spring of 1979 at BU. It was a year of tremendous labor unrest at BU (five strikes!), and anti-Silber sentiment had evolved into a "Dump-Silber" movement. Zinn was one of a good-sized "core group" of active participants in the movement. That spring, with "60 Minutes" cameras rolling, a teach-in was held one night in the Morse Auditorium. One speaker after another took the microphone to spill out their group's grievances against Silber. I know Zinn spoke that night and I know he was, in his typically top form, charismatic, persuasive and compelling. I don't recall details of any speeches; it was 31 years ago.....but, it was a moment when Zinn was in his element. He rose to that occasion.

After I left BU, I always kept track of Zinn. I read his articles, year after year, as they appeared in left-leaning periodicals like The Nation, Progressive, Z and others. I could always count on Zinn to express an original, unconventional point of view on current events. Or, I'd catch up on his earlier accomplishments - like his days in the Student Non-violent Coordinatring Committee (SNCC) a civil rights organization Zinn got involved in while a professor at Spelman College in Atlanta, Ga. OR his intensive involvement protesting against the Vietnam War. Zinn usually criticized Presidents - Republican or Democrat - because they implemented the same basic foreign policy principles he opposed. He argued passionately against interventionist wars from US involvement in El Salvador to the invasion of Iraq.

A few years ago, I learned that Zinn was one of the speakers slated to appear at a rally focused on the cause of impeaching George W. Bush for his invasion of Iraq. Cindy Sheehan and others were on the agenda, but, I was motivated to rush a 45-minute drive into Boston to attend only to see Zinn. I recall sprinting across Boston Common, afraid that I had missed Zinn's remarks, but, thankfully, he was just starting as I arrived. Though Zinn was close to his mid-80s, I was amazed at how good he sounded that day and how comfortable he seemed in his familiar role. He ripped into the Bush crowd for the unfounded, insane war they had started. He held nothing back - one harsh, blunt truth after another. It was a joy to hear. I applauded and marveled at how rare a person Zinn was. He spoke no more than 20 minutes, but, I left a few minutes later feeling invigorated and a tiny bit more hopeful that change was possible again.

That recollection reminds me of an earlier moment Zinn impacted me regarding Iraq. It was the winter of 2003 and it seemed the whole country was supporting the Bush Administration's planned invasion of Iraq. I didn't understand why the US was going after Iraq rather than focusing on Al Quaeda. It made no sense, but, I was confused why so many people - including US senators and US representatives - were supporting the war. I had heard so much news about Saddam Hussein's repeated disregarding of UN resolutions and the potential dangers he posed that I recall moments of pausing briefly in uncertainty and questioning my own stand on Iraq. Then, I happened to watch Zinn being interviewed on Bill Moyers' Now on Jan. 10, 2003. It was around the time Zinn had just written a book called Terrorism and War.

When the interview was over, my anti-war impulses felt stronger than ever. In fact, I felt, honestly, that Zinn, in that one interview, had led me to a more full-fledged opposition to war, in general, than I had ever felt in my life. To this day, I'm grateful for hearing Zinn's wisdom on the subject of war.

Consider just a few samples from the Jan, 2003 Moyers' interview.

Moyers asked Zinn if he thought the US planned attack on Iraq was like what the terrorists did by driving airplane bombs into the World Trade Center.

Zinn: Well that's right. "I mean war is a form ot terrorism. I know there are people who don't like to equate - what was done- you know on September 11, 2001, they don't like to equate that with a war that the United States engaged in. Sure, they're different. But they're not different in the - in the fundamental principal that drives the terrorists and that is, they're saying, we're going to kill a lot of people but it will be worth it. We're trying to do something. We're trying to accomplish something. They - the terrorists are not killing people just for the sake of killling people, they have something in mind. To show that the American empire is vulnerable or to make some point about American policy in the Middle East. But they have an end in mind. We are doing the same thing. I mean, as I say, the details are different, but we are willing to kill a lot of people for some political end that we have declared...."

Then, a few minutes later, Moyers asking Zinn for his views on what might deter terrrorists.

Zinn: ".....Are terrorists going to be deterred-- are terrorists going to be scared if we react violently? No. They love it. That's what they dote on. They dote on violence. They dote on having more reasons to commit more terrorism. We solved the problem of the hostages in Iran by negotiations. You know? And there are many situations where we engage in violence and in wars that could be solved by negotiations..."

Zinn, in his book, Terrroism and War, apparently offered more of his thoughts on how to deal with the causes of terrorism.

"If we want to do something about terrorism, Zinn wrote, "we will have to do something about the grievances from which terrorism springs." Zinn made these remarks on C-Span, in an apparent discussion of his book.

In the book, Zinn complained that George W. Bush was ridiculously off-base to suggest that terrorists had attacked the US due to jealousy of Americans' freedom. He pointed out that terrorists had shown more interest in the US external actions - including about US troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia, the tremendous support the US had given Israel or the US sanctions against Iraq, which had hurt the country.

I grew to believe, through the years, that Howard Zinn was the most eloquent, powerful voice against war I've ever heard in my life. When he speaks about the meaninglessness and harm of war, he frames things beautifully and gives you an honest dose of "common sense" and wisdom that I wish everyone could hear. No one in Washington speaks the truth about war like Zinn.

Many of us go through life with goals and dreams of somehow having a real influence on other people's lives before we die. If our dreams relate to improving the human condition, well, that can feel even better to ponder.

Zinn died knowing he had an overwhelming impact on many people, and, even sweeter, his impact was often on the thinking, outlook and views of people - making his imprint even more likely to endure and live on. I'm sure many of Zinn's former students and his readers or audiences have been significantly influenced by his original outlook on history and humanity.

I'm convinced the best way we can honor Howard Zinn is to keep up his fight for social justice, each in our own way.

Zinn, in an interview, apparently, said he wanted to be remembered as "somebody who gave people a feeling of hope and power that they didn't have before."

Zinn gave me that feeling and I'll always remember how he shared his unique strengths with so, so many people.

Coakley Didn't Go Down Fighting for Her Beliefs

By now, the whole world knows that Scott Brown won a shocking upset over Martha Coakley.
Yet, not enough has been said about how and why Coakley lost a race that appeared so winnable.
Many have acknowledged Brown ran a good, energetic campaign with good television advertising and an approach that allowed him to "catch the wave" of voter anger toward Washington.
Similarly, many have said Coakley ran a "poor" or "weak" campaign...but, I think the more one looks at the details of what unfolded, the more one can connect Coakley's downfall to: a) her own troubling flaws as a candidate, and, b) the malaise in American politics today, in general.

I think the Democratic Party put itself in a vulnerable position by not having a better candidate to face Brown. I heard Kathleen Townsend Kennedy, RFK's daughter, say candidly after last week's election, that she felt if her brother, Joe, had run, he would have won. I agree. I believe a number of different Democrats could have won. Why? Any one of them would have projected more enthusiasm and confidence while campaigning for votes than Coakley did. In addition, he or she would have had strong, heartfelt convictions about at least several of the major issues and argued for those positions with some passion.

Coakley, meanwhile, openly revealed her distaste for campaigning by simply choosing to do less meeting and greeting voters than expected and by her infamous, off-the-cuff comment about preferring to not greet voters outside of Fenway Park. (Voters hate to hear candidates complain, in any way, about campaigning. Why elect somone who' s whining about that process?)

Coakley showed, in a variety of ways, a lack of hunger or fire on the campaign trail. For instance, when former President Clinton or President Obama came to stump for her, how come we didn't hear anything about the speech or remarks that Coakley gave on those occasions? Usually, when a big name appears to endorse someone, the candidate is inspired to show a little more verve in their own rhetoric or message. Coakely kept allowing herself to play a "secondary" diminished role. Instead of rising to the occasion, she acted like she was either "entitled" or the frontrunner who didn't have to fight for much.

Coakley ran with an aura that reminded some of Mike Dukakis running for President in 1988; she lacked passion, seemed to go through the motions and gave "pro forma" responses to questions instead of showing any spontaneity.

These various points all lead to my largest complaint about Coakley: She was
far, far too CAUTIOUS in her entire approach. She seemed unwilling to take risks in so many ways -- whether it was the "risk" of pressing the flesh with ordinary voters in cities and towns across Massachusetts OR the risk of "fighting back" against Brown's message and his criticisms OR the risk of aggressively truth-telling and presenting arguments to rebut Brown's points.

Even in the primary campaign, Coakley showed an incredible aversion to risk. The difference was, in the primary, she got away with it. Her three male opponents - Mike Capuano, Steve Pagliuca and Alan Khazei - showed a steady reluctance to go on the offensive against Coakley. Capuano did it a bit, but, not enough. Further, Coakey actually scored points repeatedly with the media by avoiding mistakes that would make her lose her "frontrunner status" As I wrote on this blog in the fall, that praise was misguided. Coakley ran a bland, cautious primary campaign. She was not interesting or compelling. The one exception was her stance to not vote for a health care reform bill if it contained restrictive language pertaining to a woman's right to choose. Beyond that, Coakley skated along without seeming to have genuine convictions she'd fight for, if elected.

Apparently, she speculated she could win against Brown using the same bland approach. One of her first very disturbing choices was to avoid scheduling any one-on-one debates against Brown without the Independent candidate Joe L. Kennedy. It was obvious she wanted to avoid the risks of going toe-to-toe with Brown and her lame excuses diminished her standing. In fact, I'd argue, her stubborn refusals to debate Brown foreshadowed her defeat - period. Why should Coakley, an experienced state attorney general, be afraid to go head-to-head against Brown, a relative "lightweight" who gave overly simplistic, flawed responses to questions about his positions?

I don't get it. All I know is Coakley kept showing that fear of taking risks. She repeatedly allowed Brown to come off as the bolder candidate with "stronger" convictions and more passion about his values and beliefs. I believe Coakley had stronger feelings about her positions, but, for some reason - probably related to personality or circumstances - she couldn't express them.

I've long believed one thing about American politics and that is that people respond to a candidate who appears authentic their expressing themselfs about what they really believe. That trait - of being oneself and true to one's convictions - in my view, is often more important to some voters than the candidate's actual positions. Ronald Reagan is the classic example who illustrated this. I think many voters pulled the lever for the Gipper because he seemed to believe in his message. I think, to a large extent, Reagan DID believe in his themes of "less government, a "stronger military" etc, etc.

Massachusetts voters didn't get a sense of what Martha Coakley really believed in or who she really was as a person or potential leader. She was so "contained" and cautious that when one contrasted her to Brown driving around in his truck and interacting enthusiastically with voters or sounding so black and white on issues, to many, it made it easier to choose Brown.

I voted for Coakley because I supported her positions - however poorly she articulated them. I could never - ever - support a reactionary like Brown. However, the election left me disillusioned because it displayed all the troubling trends about the state of politics seen at every level.

Think about it. Every day, US House members and US senators behave like Coakley did in this campaign. They're cautious - cautious - cautious. They don't say or do anything to increase the risk of alienating voters and losing elections. This lack of candor and spontaneity has gotten so pervasive that it represents a crisis, in my view. Politics has become a bore. Politicians don't stand up for their beliefs, for principles, for what's right for this country. (Interestingly, during the one televised candidates' debate, when the candidates were asked their general positions on how to combat Al Quaeda, Independent Joe L. Kennedy gave the most original, direct, thoughtful response by describing the negative impact of the US "occcupying" other countries, and, how that stimulated resentment and hatred toward the US. To me, it's not a coincidence that Kennedy, feeling he had nothing to lose, gave a more "risky" but honest response than the others).

Instead, they stick to their "talking points" and try to run campaigns like Coakley did. What worsens all this, is that reactionary Republicans like Scott Brown fill the void left by cautious, cowardly Democrats. Republicans tend to be more willing to use harsh rhetoric that grabs voters - even if it's reckless or inaccurate.

You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see an intelligent, thoughtful, qualified candidate run for a US House seat or a US Senate seat and just speak the truth and give their honest opinion from start to finish -- with the full knowledge that he or she would probably lose the campaign. If we got some candidates like that, we'd be reminded, at least, that it's possible to make politics more interesting, fun, and, yes, meaningful again. We need more candidates who are truly unafraid to lose because that means they'd also want to win only if they could defend their convictions honestly.

I think it's unfortunate that Coakley couldn't find ways to overcome her personal limitations as a candidate and still somehow forcefully project why she should fill Ted Kennedy's seat. Massachusetts DOES desparately need more women to represent us in the US House and Senate. (One last footnote: I sense that if other politicians and organizations and players in the Democratic Party had helped Coakley more, it'd might have helped her edge out Brown. For example, did Boston Mayor Thomas Menino do all he could to unleash his "machine" to get out the vote across Boston for Coakley? I don't think so. I heard MSNBC guest Lawrence O'Donnell, late on Election Night, speculate that Menino's choice to not go all-out for Coakley probably had a real impact. I've seen no stories that have questioned the role that Menino or other incumbent Democrats played in helping Coakley pull out a win).

In the end, though, it was Coakley's responsibility to motivate voters.

I think it would have been much better for Coakley to lose fighting for what she believed than to lose running a timid, passionless campaign. Especially trying to replace Ted Kennedy, who was always a fighter.

.

Does the truth matter any more?

Just when I think the state of American political discourse cannot get any worse, it keeps dropping further. This time, I'm referring to recent dialogue about the US response to terrorism, and, primarily, Republicans' criticisms of President Obama's recent handling of matters.

Politicians keep making reckless, false remarks about terrorism and news organizations keep failing to hold them accountable. Meanwhile, the public doesn't seem to care much OR feels too detached and helpless about changing things.

First, Republicans aggressively attacked Obama's initial response to the Christmas Day incident aboard a commercial plane. They wanted him to say more and do more. I actually didn't find Obama's response that disturbing because I think it's more wise for our country to act as low-key as possible - rather than hysterical - after an attempt by terrorists. After all, the objective of terrorists is to cause the most hysteria, fear and distraction. Putting aside a debate about Obama's day-to-day handling of this from his Hawaii vacation, my point is that Republicans didn't hesitate - for one second - to jump all over what they saw as a "political opportunity" to attack the President. They didn't show regard for the sensitive nature of the matter. Even attempted acts of terrorism won't make certain Republicans refrain from their non-stop criticism of Obama.

Some of their criticism continued into this past week. Then, Obama, a few days ago, announced the findings of his Administration's review of the failed airplane bombing and outlined a list of specific changes that would be implemented to improve the country's response to possible terrorist activity. Obama acknowledged that the system had failed and needed improvement. I don't recall former President George W. Bush ever making the kind of strong, specific, reality-based statement about terrorism.

However, in the weeks before and days after Obama's announcement, we heard several remarks by other prominent Republicans, during television interviews, that reached a new "low."

Republican strategist Mary Matalin, who formerly worked for former VP Dick Cheney, in a Dec. 27, 2009 interview on CNN, remarked that the Obama administration had too frequently complained about what it inherited from the Bush administration. She said the Bush Administration "inherited the most tragic attack on our soil in our nation's history," and implied that the 9/11 attack was the result of mistakes by the Clinton administration.

A few weeks before Matalin's line, Dana Perino, the former Bush press secretary, in a Nov. 24, 2009 appearance on Sean Hannity's Fox News television interview show, said "...we did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's' term...."

Then, finally, yesterday, on Jan. 8, 2010, came former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's turn. Giuliani first said Obama should be "following the right things that Bush did" and went on to say that while Obama's announcement last week "turned the corner" in his understanding of terrorism, that Obama still had much improving to do. Then:

"We had no domestic attacks under Bush, " Giuliani said. "We've had one under Obama."

(Guiliani, later Friday, apologized and acknowledged he had misspoken by omitting the words "since 9/11." His earlier remark had also omitted mention of the failed attempt of shoe bomber Richard Reid, who, in December, 2001, was apprehended on a flight bound from Paris to Miami. In addition, Guiliani didn't mention anthrax attacks that occurred.).

It sounds like Republicans are stooping to an incredible, new low by creating this new line to use against President Obama. We should notice if it gets repeated.

Let's pause to consider the outrageous scope of this new "claim," or, attempt at propaganda by these three Republicans. That's what it is - propaganda. I guess, these three Republicans are telling us that 9/11 didn't really happen when it did. I guess they feel that we Americans are paying so little attention or we're so stupid that they can just manipulate a little change in language and create a new impression - a new "context" for 9/11. Pretty soon, they'll claim that Clinton shared responsbility for the US "having to" invade Iraq. This is all such crap, but, these days, in our current media environment, the truth doesn't seem to matter any more. The Republicans take advantage of that - in the ugliest ways.

Let's face it. This isn't really a new approach. Some Republicans have been in the habit of disseminating falsehoods like this in recent years. Remember all the many lies that comprised the Bush Administration's long propaganda campaign before the US invasion of Iraq? Between Sept. 11, 2001 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Bush Administration officials orchestrated the most extreme propaganda campaign I recall seeing in the US. They made one false statement after another for months and months. The US House and Senate went along. The public bought into it. Now, Iraq, the US and the whole world are worse off as a result of that crazy invasion.

The Bush Administration "politicized" its anti-terror efforts in a variety of ways in the years that followed, using its "war on terror" to justify changing laws and people's rights to privacy and other protections - and on and on. Then, there were occasions when, the Bush administration seemed to change the "terror alert levels" at times that, coincidentally seemed to benefit the President - like during the 2004 presidential campaign. So, Republicans are on the thinnest ice trying to criticize Obama's anti-terrorism efforts.

So, are we going to let a "new" line of propaganda be used again now? Won't any US Senator publicly challenge and demand a response to the kind of comments made by Mary Matalin? Why the hell should she or Dana Perino or Guiliani be allowed to get away with saying anything like they did? Matalin and Perino should publicly retract their remarks. Have they?

I believe the current crowd of Republicans, reactionaries and right-wing nuts will stoop to any new "lows" they choose to attack Obama and score political points --- even when it involves our safety, national security and matters for which they should be held to a higher standard of truth-telling. (Do you recall how Democrats usually went along - in a show of "unity" - with Bush's anti-terrorism efforts? How they, in fact, did refrain from criticizing him at sensitive moments relating to terrorism? It seems Republicans are employing different standards toward Obama)

Today, no one seems to keep track of who - among our highest public officials - and their supporters and critics - tell the truth and who do not. No one seems to be held accountable for what they say anymore. It's a climate that creates fertile ground for propaganda.

On the other hand, people can reject propaganda. The truth does matter. The 9/11 attack happened on George Bush's watch and his Administration was prepared to immediately use the incident as a springboard to go after Iraq and to radically redefine how we deal with terrorism and countries that sponsor it. That's what happened.

In the end, though, it is the people who have to make the truth matter more.

Ten Random Wishes for the New Year

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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