Why Can't Republicans Just Give Obama Credit for Getting Bin Laden?

The night President Barack Obama told the nation that the US had killed Osama Bin Laden, one of my reactions was: "This is a giant accomplishment that no one will be able to take away from him."

Then, the next morning, Rush Limbaugh launched into a weird sarcastic rant about how unique Obama's role was in the mission. Sarah Palin later offered congratulations to the military, and gave prominent mention to former President George W. Bush without mentioning Obama by name. Glenn Beck later said he thought it was "disgusting" for Obama to visit Ground Zero in New York City on Thursday, May 5th, because, apparently, he thought the President was trying to draw extra attention to himself. (In fact, Obama went to meet with 9/11 families, firefighters and police, and, in fact, didn't give a speech there).
Other Republicans who commented on the US raid on Bin Laden seemed determined to give much public credit to Bush, and usually stressed his contributions at least as much as Obama's and often more.
Consider the statement the next morning from "Keep America Safe," an organization run by Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, Bill Kristol and Debra Burlingame:

"Today marks a major victory for the people of the United States and the forces of freedom and justice all over the world," the statement said. "We are grateful for the bravery of the Americans who raided the compound near Islamabad and killed Osama Bin Laden. We are also grateful to the men and women of America's intelligence services, who, through their interrogation of high-value detainees, developed the information that apparently led us to Bin Laden.......

How small and cowardly of this group to disregard President Obama, who, indisputably, played a central, commanding role in the planning and order for the raid that led to killing Bin Laden. Of course, Kristol was a big booster of the invasion of Iraq who I've never heard utter any regret for being on the side of such a disaster that killed thousands of human beings.

As the next few days unfolded, the trend became even more clear: Republicans often gave far more emphasis to Bush's contributions even if they praised Obama.
My reaction: When Bin Laden has just been killed nearly ten years after 9/11, any Republican choosing to bring up Bush as someone who should share credit with Obama is either can't face the truth, is stupidly partisan or has a lack of character in more ways than one.

After all, it's the Republicans who are always running over each other to compete for the "most patriotic" label. Why not show a little loyalty to your country, you Republicans, by acknowledging that the current President had a lot to do with the raid on Bin Laden? In fact, it would not have happened if he had not given the order, you turkeys!!!!!

But, even after Obama played an impressive, commanding role in this huge event - the killing of the world's most wanted terrorist and mass murderer - some of his reactionary critics still are unwilling to acknowledge reality. It's embarrassing. Why don't Democrats ever challenge these kind of ludicrous remarks? Why can't they stand up for Obama even when he's pulled off a great achievement the whole country has waited for?
Bin Laden was responsible for the worst mass killing of Americans (nearly 3,000) in the U.S. since the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Bin Laden essentially led the Bush Administration to make its disastrous decision to invade Iraq for no good reason. This led to thousands of people dying. Hate for the US intensified and multiplied around the world. Bin Laden has caused a lot of bad things to happen for the US. Now, thanks mostly to Obama and his team, Bin Laden is gone.

Further, it takes a lot of gall for Republicans to push Bush's name out there at all when it comes to Bin Laden. Bush failed in several enormous ways regarding Bin Laden while Obama did much better.

First, 9/11 happened on Bush's watch and while I'm not blaming Bush for that directly, news stories have surfaced through the years about certain reports of an increased likelihood of terrorist activity in the days before 9/11. I won't second-guess it now, but, I'm just stating that the Bush administration was in power.
Second, Bush's outlook toward catching Bin Laden seemed to change dramatically in 2002, when he and his team were planning the invasion of Iraq. I've seen the tape on TV the past week of Bush saying he didn't know where Bin Laden was and it was not a real concern of his. Then, of course, the Bush Administration dragged the US into a completely unnecessary war with Iraq, but, before they did, they attempted to substitute Saddam Hussein in their propagandist rhetoric for Bin Laden, who they seemed to view as less relevant then.
Obama, by contrast, as a presidential candidate, said he'd go after Bin Laden aggressively and said that if he had to go after Bin Laden in Pakistan to get him, he would authorize that.
Third, Bush, by reports and indications, was a President who relied very heavily on VP Cheney and other advisors to make key decisions, including on foreign policy and intelligence matters.
Obama, by contrast, apparently, oversaw at least nine meetings held to discuss the details and ramifications of the raid on Bin Laden. He's been heavily involved in deliberations with his military team about Afghanistan. He comes across as a President who's more knowledgeable, more hands-on, more intelligent, more competent, more able to participate in discussions, and more eager to seek out others' opinions. (You'd think such a leader would deserve a few words of praise after this historic raid)
Fourth, Bush and his team actually caused an increase in Al Qaeda involvement in parts of the world, particularly Iraq, where Al Qaeda men poured in to take part in the war there. Obama, by contrast, from the first months of his presidency, intensified US attacks on Al Qaeda in various locations and sometimes used drones, unmanned vehicles, to fire missile attacks.
Some of these more aggressive attacks have reportedly been successful, and, at times, reports have indicated the killing of various Al Qaeda leaders.

I feel one could write a book documenting why Obama deserves more credit than Bush for this recent raid. Frankly, I think it's sad and discouraging that people are discussing Bush's role
at all. One of the only reasons, I guess, is that supporters of the use of torture (like Liz Cheney's group) claim that the enhanced interrogations used under Bush led to bits of information that proved useful to the Obama team. However, this conclusion is premature and people are still debating what led to what. My bigger point is that even if some intelligence was passed on usefully, how can anyone forget that Bush's main response to Bin Laden and 9/11 was to invade a country and kill thousands of people there along with our own men.
_____________________________________

I'm just tired of Obama never receiving unqualified praise for the good things he's done. I know he's made many mistakes. I disagree with him no some important issues like Afghanistan. But, I believe that people set unrealistic standards for him because he's black. No matter what he does, people seem a bit more eager and a bit more able to voice some grievance. Why is that?

People blame the economy on Obama. That's not really fair, either, because Presidents can only do so much to impact the whole economy, especially with today's complex, interactive global economy. When Obama took the advice of most economists and got a stimulus package passed, he was ripped from all sides that the stimulus didn't work. He helped bail out the auto companies, which were on the verge of collapse. Some ripped him for that. He bailed out the banks, to help the economy, in the longer run. He got criticized. Obama took a lot of heat for his handling of the BP oil spill, which was largely out of his control.I saw journalist Jonathan Alter being interviewed by Chris Matthews on Hardball last week. Alter was asked about the impact of the killing of Bin Laden on Obama as President. Alter said that Presidents are often rightfully held responsible for things that happen on their watch.
"..So, if Obamais going to take blame for the economy, he needs to get credit for this," (killing of Bin Laden) Alter said.

That sounds fairly sensible to me even though some things that happen on a President's watch are truly out of his control.
All I know is I do not recall any President taking on more enormous crises and problems all at once in his first two years than President Obama. That he tried to get a major health care reform bill passed while his plate was so full probably was a mistake. His bill ended up being very flawed. Yet, he'd probably argue that it was a giant step for the country to get something done - to get the ball rolling.

There are reasons Obama gets criticized and it's another blog topic. But, his particular strengths really helped him show leadership in the raid on Bin Laden and if Republicans or others cannot see that in perspective, then we'll have even more meaningless partisan sniping all the way until Election Day in 2012. I predict that, anyway, I guess.

Pondering the Crazy Times We Live In

Let's see. Which of the 150 or so disturbing things happening in the world should I begin with?
I've chosen just five topics that are bugging me. I'll start with the coverage of Charlie Sheen.

• Coverage of Charlie Sheen Shows We Are LOSING. The coverage of Sheen's behavior represents a new "low" of sorts because the television networks, particularly cable and gossip shows, are so openly exploiting Sheen's personal problems to increase their ratings. The context for this is not the least bit subtle. The television industry doesn't give a damn about Sheen's mental health or substance abuse problems. As long as he's outrageous, they keep the limelight on him. What does this say about our society? People are gobbling up reports on Sheen. What's next? Do you think television will give us prime-time coverage of a man setting himself on fire? It seems the door has been kicked further open for almost anything. I recall when the networks, back in 1994, broke to live coverage of O.J. Simpson's Bronco chase away from the Los Angeles police. Helicopters helped bring the country live shots of Simpson's Bronco pulling into his driveway as reporters openly wondered if he'd kill himself then and there. I remember sensing that that had begun a new "era" - a new "low." We've seen many other "lows" since, but, this Charlie Sheen saga is now the newest episode on the list, and, I find it an embarrassing metaphor for the "entertainment-first" culture we live in. I was disgusted to see an article in the March 21st Newsweek by Bret Easton Ellis that actually heaped praise on the unique contributions of Sheen. The headline reads: "Charlie Sheen is Winning - With his tweets, his manic interviews, his insurgent campaign against the entertainment world, the star is giving America exactly what it wants out of a modern celebirty" The author gives his views on why Sheen's one-man "protest" has struck a chord, but he barely mentions the actor's problems that are driving all his behavior. So, this Newsweek article - like Sheen - puts entertainment ahead of all. Forget the truth. Forget context. Forget discretion. We live in a sick society.
• It seems fitting, in a negative way, that Newt Gingrich is taking preliminary steps toward running for President in 2012. Why? Because Gingrich knows that in today's crazy media climate, he's much more likely to get away with failing to explain his personal mistakes in the past AND that he can speak in extreme, reckless terms - the way he likes to. Think about it. In today's media landscape, people say outrageous things one day, and they're forgotten a few days later. So, for example, even though Sarah Palin, as a vice presidential candidate, couldn't discuss the most basic issues in 2008, the media has been hyping her every move since because of her entertainment value. Glenn Beck says wacky things on FOX television, but, he keeps his job. Rush Limbaugh spouts wild, negative comments and yet, he retains, mysteriously, enough political "clout" that politicians, particularly Republicans, often remain afraid to challenge him publicly. So, it seems to "follow" that Gingrich has already pulled off an amazing, objectionable move: He blamed his infidelities (that led to his two divorces) on his extraordinary patriotism. Yeah, he actually said words to this effect - in case you missed it. David Brody of the Christian Broadcast Network recently asked him about his past behavior. Newt, in his reply, said: "...There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate...I found that I felt compelled to seek God's forgiveness. Not God's understanding, but God's forgiveness. I do believe in a forgiving God. And I think most people, deep down in their hearts hope there's a forgiving God...." Gingrich reportedly chose to discuss his divorce of his first wife while she was sick with cancer recovering from surgery in the hospital. Then, his second wife reportedly found out about his later infidelity right after she had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.
• The state of Texas is giving serious consideration to a proposed new law that would allow college students and professors to carry handguns on campus. Just a few months after the horrific shooting episode in Arizona when US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others were shot by an unstable man, it is hard for me to fathom why legislators in Texas or any other state would choose to allow more handguns to be in circulation rather than less. It would only increase the chances for someone to be wounded or killed by a gun. Texas allows concealed firearms in most public places, but not in college buildings. Eight other states are considering bills that would allow concealed firearms to be carried on college campuses. Utah is currently the only state in the US that in allows concealed guns on public college campuses. In more than 20 other states, similar proposed bills have been defeated in the past, according to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. If anything, the Arizona tragedy demonstrated the tremendous need for stricter gun control across the country. After all, the shooter used a gun with a high-capacity magazine that would have been prohibited if the assault weapons ban law had not expired in 2004. It defies common sense that politicians are so fearful of the gun lobby that they do not take action to prevent the needless deaths of so many people due to gun violence.
• Politicians - including US congressmen and a potential presidential candidate - continue to stir discussion about whether President Obama was truly born in the US. This false claim should have never been treated as a legitimate topic for media coverage unless some facts had emerged that raised actual doubt or questions about Obama's citizenship. That has never happened. Yet news organizations keep allowing individuals to raise this ludicrous topic without vigorously questioning and objecting to it. Although not one shred of new evidence has surfaced that indicates anything contradictory about Obama's citizenship, we keep hearing about the "birthers." News organizations keep reporting on lies related to Obama's birth. The latest example: 2008 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee recently made the glaring mistake of saying Obama had grown up in Kenya. My view is that anyone who makes his false claim about Obama ought to be aggressively questioned, scrutinized, criticized and held accountable. Obama is two years into his presidency. That this subject is even on anyone's radar is inexcusable and suggests either racism, stupidity or motivation stemming only from ill will.
  
  
• The coverage of President Obama often suggests that public and/or media expectations of what a US president can do are so far off the charts that it reveals troubling trends. Barack Obama inherited a boatload of troubles when he took office and it seems he's been wrestling with crises during much of his tenure. I'm used to noticing that people expect Presidents to do far more than they can, but, in Obama's case, I feel the expectations have been laughably extreme. He came into office inheriting the worst economic crisis since the Depression. Economists from all sides recommended passage of a stimulus package. Later, Republicans ripped Obama because, they claimed, the stimulus was wasteful and didn't create enough growth. The auto industry failed. Obama's administration stepped in. Banks failed. Obama intervened to bail them out. Later, these actions were part of the Republicans' overall criticism of Obama being a "socialist" proponent of big government. Then, there the BP oil spill and people complained Obama should've done more. (Did they want him to wear scuba gear and clean up the oil himself?) With the latest unrest in countries in or near the Middle East, critics said first that Obama was saying too much about Egypt. Then, they said he wasn't doing enough. Just recently, some critics have suggested that Obama should be doing more to intervene to help the rebels in Libya. Of course, for the US to create a "no-fly-zone" would have required bombing sites in Libya first and such action would stir up incredible hostility from other countries - including Iran, which already urged the US to refrain. Sometimes I wonder how Obama keeps his sanity in the White House. I do notice that he seems to receive far more criticism and scrutiny than George W. Bush received at times. I vividly recall the Bush Administration's long propaganda campaign to create public acceptance for the invasion of Iraq. I recall the media "going along" with much of the campaign and failing to raise nearly enough questions. Can you imagine if Obama tried to launch an invasion of a country like Iraq without justification - and, that thousands of people then died as a result? Unfortunately, it's clear that Obama is held to a different standard due to his race. It's time for people to be more realistic and fair in those expectations.

A Lingering Thought After Tucson Tragedy

For a few days last month, we witnessed something truly unusual: Some of the country's right-wing talk show hosts received a little scrutiny and criticism for their reckless words. I'm referring to the few days after the tragic shooting of US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 18 other people in Arizona.

Many people felt that these talk show hosts' (among others) disturbing tendency of using hostile, violent references toward government officials had contributed to an environment that might push the wrong buttons for the killer, Jared Loughner, who clearly suffers from severe mental illness.

The biggest names of the bunch - such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck - immediately became extremely defensive about this viewpoint. They charged that this sentiment amounted to ridiculous scapegoating when, in fact, the killer had been identifed.

Limbaugh, predictably, went on the offensive rather than to attempt any thoughtful reflection about the potentially negative impact of his own "attacking" rants on his show.

"....What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country," Limbaugh said on his show. "He's sitting there in jail. He knows what's going on, he knows that ...the Democrat party is attempting to find anybody but him to blame....."

That was a really stupid comment - even for Limbaugh. He and other right-wingers just couldn't face that maybe the subject of what makes a mentally ill person suddenly commit a violent act is more complex and worthy of thoughtful examination than the same old black and white labeling.

It's true that no one can prove the extent to which Loughner was or wasn't influenced by the "discourse" in the background. However, for a few days, television and radio shows were actually discussing whether the level of "vitriol"in this country had become more dangerous than it should be.

My reaction: It was about time.

It has always struck me how little public criticism is directed at right-wing talk show hosts who routinely spout irresponsible, inflammatory, inaccurate words on the airwaves. I refer to Limbaugh, Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly of FOX-TV and Sarah Palin, who has seemed to assume the role of an "entertainer" more than a serious former governor.

It seems clear that politicians in both parties feel it's not in their interests to take on these controversial talk show hosts publicly. Others might feel it's a no-win scenario because Limbaugh and company will always get the last word.

But I wish so much that more politicians and public figures would publicly criticize these right-wing talk show hosts more often. Why? That's the least they deserve for the many outrageous, unsubstantiated things they say and holding them more accountable would be good for all of us.

I heard some topics discussed after the Tucson shootings that deserve ongoing attention.
Chris Matthews, the host of "Hardball" on MSNBC kept raising the question of: Why have people on the Right, in certain parts of the country, more often been bringing guns to public appearances such as speeches or rallies?
Good question. It's a scary development. People should not be allowed to carry guns to these sort of events - period.

It's also worth worrying about why the threats made against members of the US Congress went way up during the first three months of 2010, according to the Associated Press. A Jan. 8, 2011 A.P. story (following the Giffords shooting) reported that in the first three months of 2010 alone, there were 42 threats made against members of Congress -- nearly three times the number of cases reported during the same three months in 2009. In March of 2010, someone "either kicked in or shot out a window in Giffords' Tucson office just hours after the Arizona Democrat voted for an expansion in government-directed health care," stated an A.P. article by Alicia Caldwell.
As we all know by now, Giffords was one of the 20 House Democratic supporters of the health care bill whose congressional district was put "in the cross hairs" of a gun site on a map that was posted on Sarah Palin's Facebook page asking people to work against those members' re-election. I haven't heard Palin ever apologize for that choice of imagery. Has she?

Interestingly, it was the local sheriff in Arizona, Clarence Dupnik, whose remarks after the Tucson shootings, brought some of the scrutiny of talk show hosts.
Dupnik said: "..It's the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business....The vast majority of those who listen to that toxic rhetoric stop short of actual violence, but some, inevitably, cross that line...."

Dupnik - like police across the land - must respond to indivuduals who "cross that line"
due to mental illness.

What's a revealing, sad commentary is that the very right-wing talk show hosts who use "loaded" rhetoric on their shows continued - after the Arizona shootings - to exhibit the same ignorance and insensitivity that they display, embarrassingly, all the time in this way: The Limbaughs and Becks of the world simply would not - and could not - discuss possible causes or factors that led Loughner to commit violence. Rather, they followed a pattern I've witnessed for years of conservatives referring to those who commit murders as being fully aware and totally responsible for their actions. They always seem to characterize acts of violence as being about only individuals and their choices. Of course, it's usually much more complicated because so many murderers are mentally ill, disturbed in some way or insane. Many of us are interested in helping mentally ill people in ways that minimize the chances of they're engaging in violence. And, yes, we want our society to try to create an environment that discourages violence - and, yes, maybe even prevents violence. Unfortunately, for many years now, politicians have been afraid to discuss the "causes of crime" out of fear they'd be viewed as "too soft on crime."

Indeed, the Limbaughs and Becks kept this bad habit alive by acting like it was so far-fetched to even imagine that the national "discourse" could contribute to anything. They dismissed the concern voiced by many. They ridiculed it. What a pathetic, unintelligent response at a sensitive moment when people were traumatized by the events in Tucson.

Rush Limbaugh and too many of his "colleagues" on the radio don't take responsibility for what they say. It's about time that Democratic and Republican politicians and the rest of us stopped tolerating that irresponsible rhetoric. People need to speak up in opposition to it - not just for a few days following a national tragedy like Tucson - but, all the time.

Belichick's Incredible Coaching Feat

Something truly extraordinary has been unfolding with the New England Patriots this season.

It is so extraordinary that even the millions of football fans who despise the Patriots and their coach, Bill Belichick, should take notice. Why? Belichick has taken a very young, inexperienced team that was very flawed and mediocre at the start of the 2010-11 season and coached it into one of the best teams in the NFL - all within a few months.

I know it sounds like I'm embellishing, but, it's true. I've watched all the games. At the start of the year, I told my brother the team was simply not good enough to make it this season. It looks like this will be a "rebuilding" year, I said. "If this team makes the playoffs, it will be one of Belichick's best coaching jobs ever.." I said.

Then, I witnessed the miracle with my own eyes: The team got better and better, and, now, it has not only made the playoffs, but, just clinched the AFC East with a 13-2 record, the best in all of football. I know some of you are thinking: "What's the big deal? The Patriots are always good. They have Tom Brady....And, it's true that Brady has been off-the-charts this season, but, trust me: The more astonishing part is that this team has improved so much - so fast - that it's now contending for a Super Bowl.

Though it's hard to believe, one key explanation appears, convincingly, to be that Belichick and his assistant coaches have taught many of these young players how to play better and better as the season has progressed. The Patriots, with Belichick, have always placed emphasis on instructing each player to "do his own job well" within "the system." If they do that, the players have learned, Belichick will give them a terrific game plan uniquely aimed at the weaknesses of each opposing team each week - and, good execution will often lead to a win.

What's been amazing is that Belichick has pulled this off with so many kids on his team this year!
The Patriots' roster had already been injected with a lot of rookies before last season, and, that 2009-2010 edition ended with the Baltimore Ravens coming to town and kicking the shit out of the Patriots by a score of 33-14. The team made no big moves in the off-season, and added even more young players, but, many football observers still guessed the team might win up to 10 games. Watching the Pats in the first few weeks, it was easy to imagine them winning less than 10 games and failing to make the playoffs.

The improbable aspect of this turnaround has been Belichick's ability to mold and tweak this Patriots team to success despite the glaring weaknesses of its defense. Again, he's found ways to make "the system" work despite the lack of many "star" players. At the start of the year, the defense, particularly, its pass defense, was HORRIBLE. No matter which team they played and who was at quarterback, their opponents could throw pass after pass and just drive down the field. Patriots cornerbacks were either badly beaten, or, in position, but flailing helplessly as the football went into receivers' hands. The Patriots were OK against he run, but flawed in that department too. They had no pass rush, as expected.

The Patriots, reportedly, have the youngest defense in the NFL and one of the youngest (or the youngest) overall teams in the league. Yet, slowly but surely, the defense has played better, and, even, found a large strength of its own by creating a lot of turnovers, particularly a steady number of interceptions. The defense is still not great. The secondary is still very weak at times. All season, the Patriots' pass defense has been one of the worst, or The Worst, of all 32 teams in the NFL. The Patriots have ranked consistently behind most teams at stopping opposing teams on 3rd down. Even now, going into the season's final game on Jan. 2nd, the Patriots' defense is ranked 27th of the 32 teams in overall defense by ESPN.

But, somehow......Belichick has found little ways to get the very most out of the talent he has. He's found a formula for his flawed defense to do just well enough to allow the Patriots offense to carry the team to victory. It is not a coincidence, for instance, that the Pats place so much emphasis on executing great offensive drives early in the game to give them a lead, thereby "setting the dynamics" for the rest of the game, and helping its young defense do its job.

The team has outperformed, or, on occasion, demolished, top-quality opponents with more "stars" or established talent on paper - like the NY Jets, the Pittsburgh Steelers, the Indiannapolis Colts, Chicago Bears and the Baltimore Ravens. Usually, the Patriots play more efficiently - and, appear to play with more mental toughness and focus - than their opponents. With each passing week, the defense has played with more aggressiveness and discipline - and begun to supplement the offense more. For instance, after the first several weeks, it seemed, the pass defenders got a bit more aggressive, in general - on their tackling and getting in position to make interceptions.

The team is using the Patriots' old "bend, but don't break" approach to defense, allowing the shortest passes but tackling receivers very quickly to limit their opponents to short gains. Plus, the team is succeeding at another old Belichick goal of limiting the opposition's Big Plays. This year, after the first few weeks, the defense has gotten very good at this - even though, often, it doesn't look that good as it "allows" opposing teams to march down the field by completing short passes. But, this young Pats team - like its predecessors - gets tougher in the red zone.

Meanwhile, the Pats' offense has been prolific - the most high-scoring, consistent unit in the league. Fittingly, one of the offensive keys has been the fantastic play of the Pats' two rookie tight ends - Rob Gronkowski and Aaron Hernandez, who is the youngest player in the NFL. They both play like veterans. Danny Woodhead, an unknown, practice squad player for the Jets in the preseason, joined the Pats and has been a surprising juggernaut, making one big play after another.

OK, I have to state the other, most obvious part of this story: Brady is performing as well ever at quarterback. He just broke the all-time NFL record for consecutive passes thrown without an interception. When the team traded Randy Moss and Brady began focusing on the short passing game he excells at, everything "took off" for the offense, and, the team as a whole. An overlooked factor has been the terrific play-calling of Bill O'Brien, who plays the role of offensive coordinator though he still doesn't have the title. O'Brien's play-calling suddenly got much better after Moss left too. It was as if the whole offense found its identity with the approach the Patriots had used so well in past glory years - with Brady hitting the open man rather than worrying about hitting Moss for bombs.

Other factors in the team's success have been:

1) The outstanding play of rookie cornerback Devin McCourty.

2) The incredible contributions of offensive tackle Logan Mankins, who, despite missing a bunch of games at the start of the year, was playing in peak form from Day One, and has helped add more fiery aggressiveness to the entire offensive line.

3) The entire offensive line has played well all year, giving Brady time to do his thing.

4) Middlie linebacker Jerod Mayo, who leads the NFL in tackles and always seems to catch an offensive player a split second before he breaks for much more yardage.

5) Vince Wilfork, the nose tackle, who, the team has moved around to keep offensive teams off balance, and has made many "big plays."

6) The great play of two "no-name" running backs, BenJarvus Green-Ellis and Danny Woodhead. Both have been consistent. Both have caught short passes well. Both have surprised the hell out of other teams and the football media.

7) The play of the Pats' special teams, which always seem to leave the team with good field position, and, that has helped Brady and the offense do their thing.

8) Wes Welker, who despite being in his first year back from a serious knee injury, is still a huge contributor to the offense getting in rhythm and moving the chains.

This year's Patriots reminds me, to some extent, of the Pats team that came out of nowhere in the 2001-2002 season and upset the St.Louis Rams in the Super Bowl. That team, like this one, had many players no one had heard of. That team, like this one, was disciplined and mentally tough and played together.

If this Patriots team loses its first game in the playoffs, I will still consider this an amazing season that I will never forget. In an era of big-name, multi-million dollar stars like LeBron James and others, it's refreshing to see a team win mainly because it excells as a group.

Bill Belichick has already received accolades and won enough to go down as one of the greatest football coaches of all time. I think that's one reason his superb coaching this year has gone a bit overlooked. Everyone just assumes his Patriot teams will be good, but, only those of us who have watched the evolution of this 2010 edition know how special this team has been. And so, regardless of Belichick's past achievements, he has demonstrated his unique talents with this particular football team in this particular year.

Belichick is the indisputable Coach of the Year in the NFL.

When Will Obama Fight For His Own Beliefs?

I've never been more disappointed in President Barack Obama.

Obama's choice to not mount any fight against eliminating former President George W. Bush's
tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans was yet another "new low point" for me. The tax cuts are due to expire Dec. 31st, but, it now looks like the both the U.S. Senate and House will approve the compromise Obama ironed out with Republican leaders to keep tax cuts for all, including the richest.

Yeah, I've heard Obama's arguments about why he had to go along with this to protect keeping a tax cut for the rest of us, along with another round of unemployment benefits and so on....but, come on! Obama had pledged repeatedly to eliminate this tax cut for the richest income brackets. If a Democratic president chooses to not even put up a fight against this most glaring inequity, what does that say about him? Or, the state of our politics?

I have not wanted to face just how little Obama has fought for his convictions for most of his first two years. He keeps getting pushed around. He doesn't draw a line in the sand on big issues. He fails to identify the largest, key issues from the smaller ones. He doesn't seem to have issues that he simply will not give in on.

In fact, I have to ask: what are Obama's convictions? I've recently realized more deeply that he just might remain a centrist compromiser who lacks a clear, strong ideology.

It's true that when he came into office, he already had a reputation as a pragmatic conciliator - a leader who liked to work out compromises in the middle. However, I thought he'd advocate for basic Democratic Party principles fairly well. I thought I could count on that. I still think he believes in ideas I care about, but, to my surprise, he has seemed unwilling and uncomfortable about stating, boldly, what he stands for.

Obama seems to have fallen into a very familiar "trap" that catches other new Presidents. After speaking out more candidly and refreshingly during a long campaign, he got into office and suddenly pulled the reigns in on all his views, feelings and public positioning. He stopped speaking from the heart - with spontaneity and conviction - and, instead, got caught up in the Washington DC whirlwind of day-to-day crisis management, including coping with conflict-oriented news media cycles and responding to critics and polls.

This phenomenon has impacted most Presidents. I recall Jimmy Carter got swallowed up by Washington. Bill Clinton's first year became a nightmare - as the media heaped coverage on every little mistake he made. It's interesting; I think it's tougher for Democratic presidents because, when they start off, they've usually promised to change a few things. Republicans often have pledged to "lower taxes" and "keep defense spending high" -- not exactly courageous principles. In any event, the larger point is that new Presidents often have trouble remaining true to themselves and sticking their necks out on issues. They're new in this biggest job in the world and they tend to want to please everyone.

Well, two years have passed and I'm still waiting to find out what Obama is FOR. I know he tried hard during his first year to keep the economy from falling into a depression. I thought he offered good leadership during a stressful, traumatic national crisis that included the need to pass and push for an unprecedented stimulus package, the failure of the auto industry, bank failures, a foreclosure crisis and on and on. But, that period required "crisis management" and Obama was able to stay in his (comfortable) "middle" much of the time.
Then, he chose to initiate a major effort at health care reform, but, during this battle, Obama showed some of his weaker tendencies; he cut ill-advised deals with players such as the pharmaceutical industry presumably to smooth the way for a bill to get passed, but, by the time the bill emerged, it was - by most accounts - incredibly watered down and didn't force change and sacrifice on the health care industry's dominant players.

So, during the health care debate, we saw Obama fail to take strong stands; in fact, he waffled so much that even his Democratic base, the key allies in the fight, grew dissatisfied with his
vagueness and refusal to dig in his heels. This was illustrated when Obama chose to not support the so-called "public option" even though he had shown support for it during the buildup to the debate.

Yet, despite my disappointment with the health care bill, I tried to focus on the positive: Obama had managed to at least get some good components approved such as much greater protection of coverage of people's pre-existing conditions.

Then, Obama, after holding lengthy deliberations over his Adminstration's policy on Afghanistan, the President emerged with a proposal to increase troops by 30,000 while insisting he'd initiate a withdrawal of those troops in the middle of 2o11. People questioned if he'd be able to stick to his plan for early withdrawal, but Obama insisted he would. Now, in recent weeks, Obama and his team are indicating they're reconsidering the goal for withdrawal, and, insteady, feel it'll probably be necessary to keep American troops in Afghanistan much longer.

That reversal, if it comes true, disgusts me. I'm opposed to American military intervention in Afghanistan altogether, but, I'm so bothered tha Obama, appareantly, can be that cynical toward the public that he advertised this "early withdrawal date" and now thinks he can reverse himself and no one will care?

I followed Obama's handling of the tax cut closely. While I tried to cut him slack initially, the more I heard mention of the unnecessary "waste" of spending that'd help the richest, I grew very disenchanted. It all hit home for me one night as I watched Lawrence O'Donnell's MSNBC show, "The Last Word" one night. O'Donnell had several excellent guests on to comment on the Obama tax cut topic. One guest was Ralph Nader. I've grown increasingly impatient with Nader in recent years, but, he was on the money this night. Nader commented that Obama has acted like the Republicans had the majority the past two years rather than seizing on the Democratic majority he has. Nader said that Obama was "conflict-averse." He said that Obama should have taken the lead on some issues by saying "Here's what we're going to do..." (meaning, or, "Here's what I want to do and here's why you should follow me")

I watched and cringed: I agreed completely with Nader. Why the hell have we all heard so much about John Boehner and Mitch McConnell the past two years? Hell, they haven't even said anything compelling. All they've done is attack Obama and oppose virtually everything he proposes. Why hasn't Obama challenged these leaders and other Republicans to argue the merits of far more issues? I'm convinced that Obama would win most debates. He's superb at arguing his points -- once he has a position, that is!

I think Nader is, at least partly, correct about Obama's conflict-avoidance. There is no reason Obama couldn't attempt more forceful persuasion about issues he cares the most about. Obama doesn't seem to "get it" that the American people like to gain "a sense" about their President's identity, his personality and passions. Look at the unique appeal of Ronald Reagan. No matter what one's view of him was, he always spoke naturally about his ideological convictions - which, conveniently, were supported by most Americans. (reduce the federal government, boost defense spending, etc.)

Obama seems constitutionally unable to articulate what he cares the most about vs. what he is willing to compromise on. I'd love to hear him identify a few things that he'll fight for no matter what -- no matter what the opposition, no matter the impact on his political fortunes.
I'm still waiting for that. Instead, he projects that he cares about everything and every issue in sort of the same voice, context and perspective.

Obama has made matters much worse by making far, far too many appearances on television. He's badly, badly overexposed and many people, I think, are predisposed to tune him out now, automatically, as a result. Sometimes, Obama comes off as another, self-absorbed, narcissistic leader who cares more about being in the limelight than the issues he's supposedly addressing.

Another discouraging example: I had thought Obama and his administration were acting a bit tougher toward Israel by prodding that Israel should really halt all construction of new settlements in designated areas, but, now, the Administration has dropped this precondition. Why? I had hoped Obama was willing to tolerate criticism and resistance on the Middle East - which would have been praiseworthy. Now, I fear that he's "wimping out" on this topic too by avoiding further conflict with Israel.

I'll tell you. After Obama's inspirational 2008 presidential campaign, he at least sounded like he'd try to change a few things in Washington. He was such a gifted orator. He could shine in debates with his opponents. He appeared like someone who could use his strengths to lead by persuasion. Now, halfway through his first term, he's appearing to be "just another President," who cannot overcome the waves of outside influence.
I hope he can rediscover his voice in the next two years. Or, perhaps, to put it more accurately: That he can learn how to articulate and fight for his own convictions more than he has so far in his public life.

Federer Finally Finds A Way to Beat Nadal

I wasn't sure I'd ever see Roger Federer defeat Rafael Nadal again.

I started closely following Federer sometime in 2006 or 2007 and that was when he began, coincidentally, to lose - consistently - to Nadal in major tournaments. I think I watched part of one match Fed won against the lefty from Majorca, Spain, but, almost all signs during the past few years have suggested that Nadal had Federer's number. Nadal has always dominated Federer on clay, highlighted by his reign of success at the French Open. Plus, in the past two years, when Rafa's overall game has improved amazingly, he caught up to Federer on hard courts, and, even passed him last year, when he won three of the Grand Slam tournaments, including Wimbledon and the US Open, where Roger had been King for years.

Meanwhile, Federer was getting a bit old to remain in "peak" form. He'd won 16 Slams after the 2010 Australian Open. He'd gotten married and had kids. What more could this uniquely talented player from Switzerland do? It seemed his skills were starting to fade a little bit. He seeemed to hit less "winners." His serve was a bit more erratic. Then, strikingly, in 2009 and 2010, Federer began to lose "big" points in pivotal moments -- points he almost always had won in the past. These lapses seemed due to sporadic loss of his tremendous confidence. In the past year, Federer got knocked out of the French Open and Wimbledon before reaching the seminfinals. (Federer, before his loss at the French, previously had reached at least the semifinals in 23 consecutive Grand Slam events dating back to 2004. Remarkable!)

It had gotten to the point where I said to my brother: "Federer either has to adjust the way he plays against Nadal or he may never beat him....."

I remember saying that more than once, but, especially after watching the 2009 Australian Open, when Nadal kept relentlessly hitting the ball deep to Federer's backhand for the entire match and the strategy was key in his winning in five sets.

Then, in the middle of a difficult 2010 - when, Federer was in his rough stretch, he hired tennis coach Paul Annacone, who had previously coached Pete Sampras. This was a Big Deal, to me, because I'd heard, like other tennis fans, that Federer had preferred not having a coach. It seemed, finally, that Fed realized he had to change a few things to stay on top and compete with Rafa and others.

Last Sunday, I was delighted to notice changes in Federer's game as he defeated Nadal in the ATP, year-end finals of the Master's tournament in London 6-3, 2-6, 6-1.

How did Federer do it on Sunday? What was different about his game vs. Nadal?

Federer was more aggressive, overall. He was trying to end rallies with Nadal earlier than in the past, and, he succeeded, to some degree. In fact, commentators noted the match was moving along quicker than most between the two rivals as a result. One reason: Federer hit more "winners" or tried to unsuccessfully, meaning Rafa had far less opportunities to control the outcome. (Other opponents have used this approach vs. Nadal with at least some success.)

Federer tried to return Nadal's second serve noticeably harder. This was striking from the start. In his first game returning serve, Federer hit his first return hard for three unforced errors, but the intent signaled his change in approach. It was a key, pleasant surprise because, unless one takes those kind of chances vs. Nadal, it can be almost impossible to beat him. Nadal wins most long rallies.

Federer tried to hit more backhand winners - and hit a few at key moments. Federer, in past matches with Rafa, has been pinned back on his backhand side, often on the defensive. In this match, Federer kept Nadal off-balance by hitting more backhands cross-court, including a few beautiful shots for winners.

Federer took advantage of moments when he could volley well at net. It's hard to avoid Nadal's terrific passing shots, but, Federer, by coming to the net more often, kept Nadal a bit more off balance, and, he was able to win a number of points from the net. That hasn't always been true in past matches with these two.

Federer didn't hit as many soft shots back in the middle of the court. In the past, Federer's soft returns down the middle have allowed Nadal to tee off, and belt forehands that ended up getting Federer on the run and on the defensive for the rest of the point. In this match Sunday, Federer appeared more focused on the placement of many shots and forced Nadal to move more. This allowed Fed to be the one to belt the winner off an average Nadal return in what was a role reversal.

Federer kept his confidence high for the whole match. There was one point in the match when Nadal was coming on strong to win the second set, and it seemed Federer was losing confidence and focus. In the past year or two, this often was a dynamic that lingered and caused Federer trouble in matches with Nadal or others. This time, Federer came out for the third set on a mission, and stepped up his game, winning 6-1, a surprising, difficult feat vs. Nadal.

Federer's serve was generally excellent. When it was on, he won, and when it wasn't he lost. For Federer to defeat Nadal at this stage of his career, he must serve well - period. Nadal is simply too good, too inexhaustible for Federer to outlast without that strength of his working. Federer, with a good serve, often can cruise through his service games.

Nadal was a bit off his game, giving Federer a good opportunity to win. Nadal had played a tough, three-set match with Andy Murray the day before, and, in certain moments, appeared to play a bit below his normal standards. Nadal didn't keep running in pursuit of a few apparent winning shots Federer hit - a sight we're all unaccustomed to given that he never seems to stop chasing almost every ball. Perhaps he was a bit fatigued.

Hey, I don't know if Sunday's match really will end up signifying real changes in how Federer plays against Nadal in the future. However, I think it suggests that Federer is trying new approaches with Nadal, and, as a result, he should have a greater chance to win. You see, as much as I love watching Federer, no one can dispute Nadal is the better player now. It's a question of whether Federer can compete with Nadal on a handful more occasions - perhaps in a few Slam events - to give the tennis world a bit more sampling of this incredible rivalry.

I wrote months ago that I thought Federer's "window" for potentially defeating Nadal in a major event was narrowing rapidly. I still believe that. In fact, I think by the end of 2011 or early 2012, Federer's chances will have diminished further. However, now, after seeing him try a few improvements that seem inspired by his new coach, I think Federer might have a chance to beat Nadal one more time. I find that exciting and it exemplifies what I love about sports. Just when you think you can predict the outcome, things change unpredictably.

For Roger Federer, at the end of his career, to find new ways to defeat his greatest nemesis, Rafael Nadal, is an unlikely, but intriguing queest that I'll follow very closely.

Content Is Overlooked in Today's National Politics

The truth, it seems, never mattered less in American politics.

Exhibit One: The Republican Party has done nothing for the past two years but attempt to obstruct progress for President Barack Obama. Yet, the Republicans just won an unprecedented number of US House seats in the mid-term elections, regaining a majority. Now, sure, opponents of Obama might be happy, but should voters on the left or the right ever reward pure obstruction?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, immediately after the election, had the gall to say that his party's top priority will be to work toward the removal of President Obama from the White House in 2012. Again, McConnell is openly indicating that Republicans won't be focused on compromising or trying to get things done (for a change) for the country.

Does anyone care about what McConnell or other top Republicans say? Is anyone listening?

I think it matters a lot that the Republicans have tried to "do nothing" for two years, don't you? Are you out there, American people? I don't know what people are thinking anymore. I swear.
A majority just voted for Republicans with an apparent message against "too much government," but the most thoughtful of those voters should have paid attention to what Democrats were at least trying to do vs. Republicans' intent - which was solely to hurt Obama.

Of course, many voters - perhaps a majority - have grown so disenchanted with Washington that they're fed up with all incumbents. There are good reasons for much disgust. In a time of crisis, politicians have been as cowardly and self-protective as ever. Yet, that's still shouldn't mean that the worst actors - the Republicans - who acknowledged their purely obstructionist motives - should be rewarded in the midterm elections!!! That's nutty. That's discouraging. That suggests our system does not work.

As we've all learned, Obama makes himself too easy - and, too long - a target, at times and that's contributed to his problems, but he DID inherit more crises than any President in my lifetime. People should take that into account. It's a hard time for anyone to be President.

The cowardly behavior in the US House and Senate has not made things easier for Obama. He's had far too few vocal, supportive allies in the Congress. Plus, generally, virtually no one in the US House or US Senate is showing any leadership these days. Almost all public policy discussion is framed by glaring partisan differences. When was the last time a politician stepped forward to take a difficult, unpopular stand? Or a Congressman or senator got rewarded for trying to compromise to get something done?

It takes Jon Stewart to organize a rally in Washington calling for a return to "sanity." Sounds like a one-time joke, but, the truth is that often one can hear more "straight talk" from stand-up comics or hosts like Stewart than from our elected officials.

It seems the whole system has gone bankrupt. The television media is preoccupied with covering the "entertainment" angle to serious topics. So, whenever conflict or hype can be used to frame a story, the news producers write the story that way. The actual content has not only become less important, but, often, it's openly disregarded or downplayed.

Look at former President George W. Bush's television appearances this past week to promote his new book. The network shows played up a few sound bites, but, I would have preferred more emphasis on the fact that Bush spoke a bit more about previously-overlooked truths about the lack of any rationale by his administration to invade Iraq. It's interesting: The news media often tells us what someone like Bush said or didn't say, but, rarely includes raw facts, background and context to major stories. Bush said, in a relatively casual way, he had approved of water-boarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 actions, without prompting much followup, for example. In the end, the coverage presented Bush's sound bites without putting his admissions, omissions and inaccurate remarks together. Bush tried to claim that while he was disappointed when weapons of mass destruction were never found in Iraq, he never was pushed, aggressively, on how the hell he could justify going to war against Iraq without evidence of WMD.

The television media doesn't even try to identify or emphasize the truth. If they get their "entertainment" from a segment, that's all they care about. And, they never want to have an interviewer get too tough or edgy with a guest - even if they're discussing whether a war had to happen!

I go on this tangent about coverage because it has impacted everything about Obama's first two years. The media has done little or nothing to put the extraordinary spending by the federal government into perspective. And, while the Obama team did a very poor job explaining its health care reform proposals during the long, ugly debate on that, the news media was even worse. The media failed to explain how " watered-down" the bill was. They failed to explain all the money and lobbying that went on behind the scenes and how that altered the context of what unfolded.

What's sad is that Obama inspired people during his 2008 campaign and spoke a lot about rising above partisan politics. He spoke about how he could bring people together. He appeared to care a bit more about principle and "doing the right thing" regardless of partisan details. Now, the Republicans have, at least temporarily, succeeded in re-labeling Obama as a "big-spending liberal" who favors government involvement all the time, no matter what the costs. Obama should have more aggressively warded off his opponents' attempts to tarnish him, but, at the same time, the media failed to separate, label and assess Obama's various decisions.

One would think that President Obama and those around him would have learned by now that they have to speak up and be clear about their goals, their day-to-day responses to developments, defending themselves against unfair attacks and continuing to clarify their positions - all the time - so that the American people and the news media understand.

It's interesting that the Obama team, for all their savvy in the 2008 campaign, has shown poor judgement in how they use the President's appearances on trips and on television. I believe one main mistake has been overexposing Obama. He's been so visible so often in his first two years that I think people tune him out now. To become more effective, in my view, he should limit his media appearances and trips more.

In addition, it'd help if Obama took more risks and offered content that reflected his true convictions a bit more often -- even if it alienates a few more politicians or interest groups.

You see, if the Obama people don't figure this out, the Republicans will keep getting attention by using more "shallow" content and superficial presentation. Sarah Palin is about to launch a new "reality" TV show on Alaska - a move that, to me, will just remind people of how unqualified and ill-fitting she'd be as a potential President. But.....the television networks and cable stations are all over the Palin show. Palin and some of her Republican peers understand how superficial and entertainment-oriented television is. They take advantage of it and no one calls them on their lack of substance.

It's be so easy for reporters, producers and editors help the American people see how unqualified Palin is. They just have to do their old jobs -- to seek and report the truth.

The problem is that the companies that own news organizations today - and the news executives who work for them - don't care as much about truth-seeking today. Content doesn't matter as much. It's an unhealthy climate - and that helps explain why individuals like Palin and Glenn Beck can attract attention rather than scrutiny.

Let's hope we can transition into a better era, when the truth matters a lot more.

Missing Tim Russert And His Approach for 2010 Election

I'd love to see Tim Russert interview one of these Tea Party candidates running in 2010!

Russert would have been able to pin down someone like the embarrassing Christine O'Donnell and reveal just how ill-conceived, empty and laughable her entire campaign is. He would have exposed many of the shallow, unsubstantiated comments Sarah Palin makes. He would have shown, by using his blown-up quotes and charts, just how little the Republican Party has actually done in the past two years to help govern the country.

It's striking how much Russert is missed right now. His approach as host of Meet the Press - which was to be armed with excellent research on his subjects and then to grill them - is simply not seen often enough in the superficial world of television political coverage today. Russert was interested in exposing the truth about a person while, at the same time, allowing that individual an opportunity to fully respond to any tough question or sensitive issue from the past.

Russert, for instance, would not have been allowed Republicans seeking re-election to the US House or Senate to get away with their record of doing nothing during President Obama's first two years in office. He would have given them their say, but then asked them, relentlessly, what they had proposed or done to improve the nation's faltering economy, for instance. Russert would have repeatedly asked Republicans why "the Party of "No" should deserve to
take over after accomplishing nothing but obstructing the President whenever it could.

I don't mean to build up Russert too much here. He had his flaws and missed his own opportunities, but, he definitely showed more interest in genuine reporting and paying attention to politicians' records and statements than the current crop of TV journalists.

I miss Russert because of that "gap." In today's crazy TV news/entertainment climate, Sarah Palin continues to receive enormous attention and is given a "standing" she does not deserve. Ever since the 2008 presidential campaign, when TV executives witnessed Palin's entertainment value and impact on ratings, they have showered her with TV coverage - whether she's making a speech or preparing her "reality show" for its debut.

What TV news producers have NOT done is pay the slightest attention to the content of Palin's remarks and her amazing lack of factual "backup" for so many of her public assertions. Palin has made so many rhetorical attacks on "big government" and the Obama administration without including facts and figures that substantiate her claims. What would Palin have done back in the winter of 2009, when President Obama inherited an incredible financial crisis and had to make hard choices to prevent the country from slipping into a depression? We don't know because TV and even print reporters never challenge Palin about these matters. I'd love to hear what Palin would have done. She probably would say she'd never have proposed such a big stimulus package. After all, that stimulus represented what typified the bad side of Big Government, she'd argue. Well, that's easy for Palin and the shallow group of right-wing candidates she supports to say. Who can't rip Big Government? Yet, if reporters would challenge her, she might have to offer alternative ideas because, in early 2009, economists from across the spectrum were advising Obama to propose a large economic stimulus package. Many recommended an even larger stimulus than the one passed by the US Congress.

So, there you go, Palin. What would you have done? You see, whenever Palin has been challenged with direct questions (like Katie Couric's relatively easy, direct questions in 2008) it seems she comes off quite poorly. She's unable to offer a thoughtful, substantive, direct response. Why is that? Doesn't that mean a great deal?

No, unfortunately, no one in the serious world of political journalism today seems to pay attention to Palin's flaws or her incapacity to grasp the hard, gray realities facing the nation's leaders. All anyone seems to care about is entertaining TV viewers. So, when President Obama started running into more serious opposition over his health care proposal, the TV decisionmakers were glad to dwell on the "winners" and "losers" in poll after poll without examining either the content of the health care proposals or just why the process got so bogged down.

The problem is that TV journalists never focus on the content! So, while they're saying "Palin said this" or "the Tea Party candidate said that," they fail badly at telling us who these people are. In fact, if they paid more attention, I'd argue they'd realize many of these people - including Palin - do not deserve any coverage at all! I'm completely serious. If a "celebrity" like Palin spouts distorted, loaded, reckless remarks, why does she deserve so much air time? Why is Christine O'Donnell still getting so much air time? She's a joke. She should quietly fade from the scene. Instead, television is so eager to inflate anything "entertaining" that the mission of news divisions has been so lost.

This national Republican Party, in 2010, does NOT deserve anything, if you ask me. They've done a disservice to the country by making it their sole purpose to hurt Obama in any way possible. Yes, I know opposition parties tend to go after opponents, but, this display of DOING NOTHING has broken any record I can recall in my lifetime. All I've heard from US Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and US House Minority Leader John Boehner has been criticism of Obama. Neither offers much beyond attacks on government spending and tax cuts.

Don't get me wrong here: The Democrats deserve some criticism too, mainly for not standing up for their beliefs and opposing the baseless charges of Republicans. Many Democrats have been cowards during the past two years by choosing to let Obama take most of the criticism without trying to defend him nearly enough.

But, back to the Republicans: I'm sorry, in a time of national crisis, we should not be giving support to a Party that openly has been trying to obstruct the President at all costs while offering nothing on its own. Candidates in that Party should be opposed vigorously. Yet, the indications are that in next week's mid-term elections, the Republicans will do very well and possibly re-take the House of Representatives.

If the news media - particularly the television networks and cable news shows - spent more time focusing on truth-telling and holding people accountable - then, maybe the Republicans wouldn't do as well next week. Correction: They definitely wouldn't do as well because shining more light on the truth tends to affect these sorts of things.

Will We See a Federer-Nadal Slam Final Again?

I think the "window" for tennis greats Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal to meet in a meaningul final of a Grand Slam event is closing more quickly than people think.

I say this after watching Nadal win his first US Open a few days ago following Novak Djokovic's defeat of Federer in the semi-finals. I was like most tennis fans who had hoped Fed and Nadal would meet again and give us a terrific match. I'm a huge fan of Federer's and had hoped to see him beat Nadal in a big match - for a change.

Nadal looks unbeatable right now, however. He's playing superbly - better than I've ever seen.
Federer, meanwhile, though still one of the world's best, looks more flawed and vulnerable than he has in recent years.

So, when might these two rivals meet again in a contest that remains competitive?

Perhaps the 2011 Australian Open - if - if - Federer can make a few key improvements to his game. He'd have to serve better, and make far less unforced errors, for starters, and, he'd have to be far more aggressive against Nadal. He'd have to go for - and get - more winners.
Would he have even a miniscule chance to beat Nadal at the French Open? No way. The 2011 Wimbledon and US Open remain possibilities, but, as the calendar keeps advancing and Federer gets a bit older, Nadal will still be young and in his prime.

This is my main point. The possible occasions for Federer and Nadal to clash in a Grand Slam event while Federer's game remains at a high level - are extremely limited. They are two players going in different directions. Nadal is peaking while Federer is has very limited time. My own sense is that the moment will have to come in the next year, with possibly one more opportunity at the most, in 2012 - at, probably the Australian Open.

It's a shame because at least two of the Federer-Nadal finals matches have been uniquely exciting. I'm thinking of their unforgettable 2008 Wimbledon Finals match, which went to an incredibly close, tension-filled fifth set - as darkness set in. Some consider that the greatest match of all time because of the high level that both men played at. It was so close and exctiing that you felt either could win at the end of the fifth set.
The 2009 Australian Open was also exciting, What made that one interesting was that Federer managed to keep it close until the fifth despite his serve and other parts of his game being sub-par. (I don't think that Nadal, today, would have needed five sets to win that 2009 match!)

The extent to which Nadal has improved his game in the past two years or so is truly remarkable. His serve is much better. While he wins a small number of aces, he often serves balls that are impossible to return well. For instance, he's perfected that one slice serve to his opponent's backhand side that requires his opponent to react with bullet-speed by lunging sideways off the court in order to have a chance.
In addition, Nadal's forehand is more powerful and effective than ever. He hits winners routinely when using his forehand going the opposite way.

Now, with the last Slam event of 2010 over, we've all witnessed the indisputable rise of Nadal to the top of men's tennis as he won the French Open, Wimbledon and the US Open all in the same year. He's the first man to win three of four Slam events like that in many years. If he remains healthy, it's not hard to imagine him winning Slam events repeatedly, and, eventually catching up to Federer's current total of 16. Interestingly, the question of whether Nadal's knees can stay healthy for a few years may be the greatest uncertainty for this multi-talented player.
Many tennis observers have wondered if his punishing style might take a toll on him and force an early retirement. He has already hurt his knees and missed considerable time and he's only 24.

Federer faces different challenges. With 16 Slams, can he stay motivated to keep finding ways to improve his game, or, ward off the decline of certain strengths? He did recently hire new coach Paul Annacone, who formerly coached Pete Sampras, and, this, to me, is not insignificant. Federer seemed to finally realize he needed help if he wants to remain on top. For several years, he had refused to hire a coach despite encountering repeated problems on the court.
I think one of Federer's new weaknesses is not hitting the ball hard enough and hitting too many "soft" returns - particularly with his backhand - that are left too shallow - in the middle of the court for his opponents to belt for winners. We saw Djocovic bash many weak Federer returns all over the court and run Fed from one side to the other. It was a sad, unusual sight to see, and, yet, one I've seen often in the past year or two. Federer allows himself to get into extended rallies, and, while he plays incredible defense, he loses too many of these points by not taking enough chances.
Beyond this, Federer needs a jolt of new confidence. Sometimes, at pivotal moments in matches when he has always been remarkably cool and clutch, he now gets distracted and seems even a bit tentative about where he wants to hit the ball. He makes more uncharacteristic unforced errors in these big moments.

After winning the 2010 Australian Open, Federer had a fairly bad year -- for him. He lost in the quarterfinals at the French Open and Wimbledon before bowing out at the US Open. (He did win a Master's tournament this past summer in Cincinnati, defeating Mardy Fish in the finals).

Don't get me wrong. I think Roger Federer has already had an amazing career - even if he does not win one more Slam event. To me, he plays a more fun, beautiful brand of tennis than any player I've ever seen.

I'd just love to see Federer get one more chance to play at the top of his game against Nadal, while he's on top. Time is running out on this great rivalry and there are not many great rivalries like Nadal-Federer left in all of sports.

Throw the Voters Out Too!

What's happened to the American people? They seem dissatisfied with just about everything, but, they're almost totally disengaged from American politics. Our political system seems bankrupt. The news media keeps harping on Sarah Palin or the Tea Party - as if these are serious, viable sources of leadership. That shows how low we've sunk.

The Tea Party is a damned joke and I'm sick of hearing about it! It seems every month, we hear about a different "controversy" involving whether some Tea Party activist or participant at a Tea Party demonstration said of did something offensive or racist. We then hear some spokesman from the supposed "national" Tea Party denying that the particular incident had anything to do with the goals of the Tea Party. We witness the networks or cable news shows giving air time to discussion of these conflicts - as if they're important to us all.

Well, you know what? I still haven't seen much evidence indicating the Tea Party should be taken seriously. Yeah, I know that in a couple of states, Tea Party-backed candidates have done well, supposedly, but, my point is that any "party" that is constantly encountering, or, creating an environment that stimulates one offensive or racist incident after another should not only be questioned, but NOT taken seriously! All of the leaders of that party should repudiate any individual or action that is offensive or racist! Instead, we hear debates about how bad incidents are.

This is all pathetic. If the Republican Party cannot strongly disassociate itself from these ugly elements, then they should be held accountable for them. The media, however, keeps giving time to the Tea Party because it is entertaining - and that's what counts the most today.

Of, by the way, I read recently that Newt Gingrich is thinking seriously of running for President in 2012. That's a perfect "fit," don't you see? Gingrich speaks intelligently, but, in "black and white" terms, about issues. He will have an easier time getting crowds fired up between now and 2012. People want simply "answers." People want simple scapegoats.

Recently, people are telling pollsters they're "dissatisfied" with Obama and the state of the country. Well, I wonder why. I guess people expected Obama would waltz in and wave a wand and make problems go away. With people's incredibly limited attention spans and unwillingness to accept the "gray" and the difficult times we live in, it figures they want to put a new person up on stage.

The people wanted Barack Obama, miraculously, to improve the economy in a few months, even though we were headed toward a depression. Then, when Obama and the Congress passed a huge economic stimulus package (recommended by economists of every kind) some people began to bitch and moan that Obama was supporting too much federal spending.

When the banks and large financial entities like AIG failed, and Obama bailed them out in the interests of minimizing harm to the economy, some people whined that Obama shouldn't have done that. He should have let them fail.

Americans want the best health care system in the world - one with, basically, universal coverage - but, one that ensures they have maximum choice and minimum premiums.

They want tough new laws on financial regulation, but, they don't want the President to be "too tough" on banks or businesses.

They want to get tough on illegal immigration; remarkably, a near-majority, I believe, now support the concept behind Arizona's new immigration law, which enables law enforcement officials to be aggressive in new, disturbing ways in order to identify illegal immigrants.

I could go on and on here, but, the theme is clear: The people want a lot, but, they're not prepared to sacrifice much of anything and they don't want to acknowledge how poorly the US economy is doing and how hard it'll be to find a "quick fix."

Americans do not want to worry about the threat of any more acts of terrorism by Al Qaeda, yet, they also want us to remove troops from Afghanistan. I agree with people on this point, but, again, I think there is a cost to pay and a burden to bear if we really want to wage a fight against Al Qaeda - whether in Afghanistan or Pakistan or elsewhere. Do people want to discuss the "tradeoffs" of doing more or less against Al Qaeda OR do they want the goverment to make Al Qaeda go away?

I'm just sick of the American people making no contribution to this mess. It seems the main "involvement" of people is to show up in polling numbers that are read on television, and, often, the polls make people look stupid. The polls reveal that public attitudes change with the wind. One minute, people are up on a topic or leader and the next thing you know, they've lost all patience.

Now, with the mid-term elections a few months away, most agree the Republicans are likely to win some seats. Some think they could even re-take the US House of Representatives. Gee, this makes a lot of sense. The Republicans have done almost NOTHING since Obama became President. Their primary, open objective has been to oppose and damage Obama's image so that he'll be more likely to lose in 2012. They've offered very few ideas on how to improve things in many areas. The "Party of No" earned that nickname.

So, now, the American people, in all their "wisdom" that we hear so much about, are actually thinking of electing Republicans simply because they'll be preferable to Democrats. All they've done is be obstructionists and people want to reward that?

Maybe it's time again for a third party - or two - in this country. People are confused. They're distracted by and mistakenly paying attention to an unthoughtful group like the Tea Party and contemplating electing Republicans?

I think the only answer is for the American people to become more engaged in politics again - so that they can notice the stakes and the true differences between the parties and our leaders.

Maybe things will have to get even worse before they get better. That's what I fear.

July Random Ramblings

I've been unable to post as many blogs the past few months, so, I'll use this one to weigh in on a few miscellaneous topics that have crossed my mind:

• I was disappointed the Boston Celtics didn't quite finish their miraculous run at a championship in June. Unfortunately, the Celts' loss in Game 7 to the LA Lakers has made it a bit easier for basketball writers and fans to overlook their extraordinary accomplishments in the playoffs. People have still not given the Celtics their proper due for transforming themselves into a much, much better team during the playoffs after playing at a far lower level for half of the regular season. The extent to which this particular Celtic team "flipped the switch" was one of the more interesting episodes I've observed in sports. I still maintain that if the Celts had defeated the Lakers, it would have been one of the most incredible feats in B-ball history. When the playoffs began, and, the Celtics were, finally, healthy, they suddenly became more focused for 48 minutes a game and returned to their top-notch defense of old. They knocked off Dwayne Wade & the Miami Heat, LeBron James & the Cleveland Cavaliers and Dwight Howard & the Orlando Magic before finally succumbing to the younger, faster Lakers halfway through the 4th quarter of Game 7 in the Finals. In my view, they simply ran out of gas due to the age of their veteran players and the cumulative toll of all the playoff games. Interestingly, if the Celts had had another day or two off before Games 6 and/or Game 7, they might have won it all. It was all about the Big Three growing increasingly weary.
• The fact that the Celts "ran out of gas" due, in large part, to age is why I'm quite surprised and disappointed that the team has re-signed Paul Pierce and Ray Allen to new contract deals that will mean at least two more seasons with both. I like Pierce and Allen, but, I think they played their hearts out in the recent playoffs and their performance will only deteriorate in the coming season - and, the next. They're getting old - in basketball terms - and the team will have to rebuild anyway. It's strange: I heard sports writers all year discuss how the Celtics did not want to repeat the mistake made in the late 1980s with the Celtics' first "Big Three" of Larry Bird, Kevin McHale and Robert Parish. Then, the Celts hung on to those three stars for what many (including me) felt was too long a time, and, when they all left, finally, the team fell apart for a while. It seems Danny Ainge and the current Celts' management team is making the same mistake again. Pierce, Allen and Kevin Garnett cannot maintain their level of play; they'll get worse, slowly, and the Celts will probably suffer a big dip - again.
  
• I applaud the fact that justice appears to have been done in the tragic case of Amy Bishop's alleged murder of her brother, Seth, back in 1986. After Amy was charged in February for murdering three of her colleagues at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, the 1986 death of her brother came under fresh scrutiny. Norfolk County District Attorney William Keating, to his credit, requested that an inquest be conducted, and, 19 witnesses testified before Quincy District Court Judge Mark Coven. A grand jury later heard the evidence and charged Bishop with killing her brother. There had been numerous, troubling unanswered questions about her brother's death and many unanswered questions about Amy's behavior surrounding that event. The Braintree, Ma. police handled the incident irresponsibly, and, for years, no one had forced a re-examination. I think Keating and all other parties involved in making the inquest happen deserve some acknowledgement. This seems a rare case when the truth, no matter how deeply it had been buried, emerged and the right message was sent about our law enforcement system - i.e. That justice can prevail and the truth can be found.
• I was so relieved that President Obama fired US General Stanley McCrystal after McCrystal and individuals close to him made an array of criticisms about the Obama team in an article in Rolling Stone magazine. Obama, in my view, had already been a bit lenient toward McCrystal when he elected to not reprimand of fire him for his critical comments many months ago about Obama's deliberations over whether to send additional troops to Afghanistan. First, I feel that Obama desparately needs to convey (more) that he's in charge, in general - and, that he's unafraid of conflict and challenging others, including those around him. Second, I felt McCrystal really deserved to be fired. If he couldn't show more support of his President (by choosing to not rip him publicly!) then, it's preferable to have a replacement.
• I am deeply troubled that there is not more unanimous, loud rejection of the Arizona immigration law from every part of this country. The very idea that this crazy law is being taken seriously by right-wingers and even a noisy segment of the news media (like the Fox TV crowd) shows you how far the public's standards and values have dropped over the past 25 years. We never hear any talk about the causes of poverty or how to address homelessness or mental health problems; instead, we hear people like US Sen John McCain and others defend an Arizona law that allows people to be questioned about their residency on occasions when the issue should not be raised. It seems to be the law is all about scapegoating and racism -- trying to spew hatred and intolerance toward minorities and immigrants - legal or illegal.
• Speaking of racism, I continue to be among those observers of the President who believe that racism is playing a huge, disturbing role in how Barack Obama is being perceived and treated as our leader. All I know is Obama has been criticized and attacked for a wide variety of flaws and mistakes - including some I do not recall being raised with past presidents.
• I hope so very much that President Obama and his team do not begin to "cave in" to Israel on an array of matters relating to tension in the Middle East. I've been so refreshed that Obama has been at least somewhat tougher on Israel over its position on planned construction of housing in the occupied territories, but, when I read the accounts of his meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu recently - and the great lengths that Obama went to to convey a message of conflict-avoidance - it got me nervous that the Administration might have lost its nerve. The longer the Obama team can be firm with Israel, the more credibility it will have with other countries that it can advance peace in the Middle East - and, the more fair its treatment of the Palestinians will be regarded.
• I have to give Hillary Clinton credit for continuing to do her job without causing any problems or conflict with Obama. As one who was worried she'd create mischief, I've been pleased so far.
• Observing Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker on the campaign trail so far reinforces the principle that just because a person is intelligent, talented and articulate does not necessarily mean he or she will be a great candidate for public office. Baker is a rare breed; he's excellent with both the "macro" and "micro" aspects of public policy. He's got an unusual combination of strengths. Yet, he has run a poor to mediocre campaign so far, it seems to me. He's taking positions that are simplistic and extreme in order to get support. He's spouting safe, cliched views such as opposition to taxes. Where's the beef, Charlie? I suspect he'll improve quite a bit in the weeks ahead. If not, he'll stand out as one of the more gifted, but un-compelling candidates in many years!

Media and People Are Blaming Obama for Too Much

Earlier this week, I was disappointed by this headline: "AP Poll: Majority disapprove of Obama on oil spill."

It was one of about 200 headlines recently associating Obama with the oil spill. The news media is at its worst when it takes a very complex topic like this spill and over-simplifies it into a referendum on Obama and tries to assess the extent to which he should be blamed for the whole spill.

So, let me get this straight: Barack Obama has been responsible for the economic disaster he inherited; the flawed, ugly process that produced the economic stimulus package that economists were urging him to get passed; the flaws in the stimulus package itself; the failure of some of the nation's largest banks and financial institutions; the bailout of those institutions; the federal government's intervention to help the auto industry; the bailout of General Motors and the size of federal assistance to the other auto giants; all of the negative aspects of passing a health care reform bill; the increase to the federal debt, the immigration problem....and on and on and on.........

Yes, I'm still rooting for Obama, but I am a realist. I recognize his flaws and mistakes, particularly his handling of the lengthy health care reform debate before the bill finallly passed. However, I'm sick and tired of too many people and organized interests (like Republicans and irrational right-wingers) blaming Obama for everything under the sun. It's ridicolous. It's crazy. It's unfair.

I have not followed the oil spill crisis in much detail, but, I know that if one scans the scope and breadth of media coverage and commentary, it suggests that the President had a much more significant level of personal responsibility for the chain of events than, in fact, he did. I can accept that the Administration could have done more in the days or weeks following the spill. I do not accept that the national coverage and analysis of this spill should be focused so much on Obama. It was not about the President. Obama was not out there letting the oil leak into the Gulf of Mexico and he cannot act like "SuperMan" and go clean it up. The media comments appear to suggest Obama had his hands all over this incident. It's a joke.

This is the news media that had a full year of knowing that the Bush Administration planned to invade Iraq and start an unjustifiable war - and to do so with blatantly false statements about its reasons - and chose to not seek and share the truth with the American people. So, in that instance, the media allowed Bush officials to keep making false links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

During Obama's tenure, it seems, the news media is still lazy, but has grown far more critical about the President's role and performance than with Bush. The media eventually misleadingly framed the economic stimulus package vote as a simple choice whether to expand the role of the federal government and approve a lot of federal spending. It was not portrayed as much as the real, unique, complicated vote it was - an attempt to follow the advice of econmists to pour federal money into the economy.

Likewise, the Obama administration's moves to intervene in the auto industry or take over banks or move against AIG were later characterized by Republicans as efforts to enhance the role of the federal government. Well, that's poppycock and more journalists and people should be calling out these Republicans for spouting these reckless charges.

So, what has all this wild, inaccurate dialogue done for us? It has helped lead us to pre-election news coverage that is so misleading and simplistic. If one watches TV talk shows, one might get the impression that Democrats support more federal government involvement and spending and Republicans don't. But, it ain't that simple -- at all!!!! For example, the Republicans have offered very, very little in substantive proposals since Obama's election. All they've done is tear Obama down. Have they been held accountable? Not really. Only a tiny, tiny bit. The Republicans have played an enormous role in preventing progress on legislation and in tainting or damaging the image of the Obama administration.

The problem is the media seems to have little or no interest in holding any US Congressmen accountable for their actions. So, the rest of us are left with cheap rhetoric and lies to sort out. So, when the congressional committees have wrestled with financial regulatory reform matters, for instance, all I know is that partisan differences have blocked progress. I'd like to know who has done what to block what -- but, in today's superficial media world, all you get is sound bites and empty rhetoric. Why else do I see Sarah Palin on the cover of my Newsweek again this week? She's covered like she's one of the most serious, important, thoughtful leaders in the world -- a person who we all must be informed about. Yeah right! Palin has not earned any of this. She's a shallow, irresponsible, over-rated woman who completed one term in Alaska to a mixed response. Then, she gave one speech at the Republican convention (reading a script of simple lines to feed the crowd) but, she was labled as a "phenomenon." Then, we witnessed her making a fool out of herself on the campaign trail. She spouted lies, recklessly painted Obama as an "unpatriotic outsider" and revealed herself to not know enough about national affairs to qualify as a vice presidential candidate, but, that didn't stop the media. They still cover Palin because she helps sell newsmagazines or TV ratings.

Well, maybe it helps ratings to constantly poll people about how Obama has handled the oil spill, but, I, for one, not only do not accept this distorted line of coverage, but I object all the coverage.

I wish journalists would return to the traditional role of telling the truth and letting the facts help us know who's accountable....but, instead, the media have ripped Obama for not displaying enough anger in response to the oil spill. They've second-guessed an array of daily actions or omissions by the Obama administration. Again, it was as if Obama had been out on the scene in the Gulf of Mexico for weeks and just disregarded it all. It was easier to frame it that way than to describe the complexities -- many of them not easy or entertaining to explain. Historian Douglas Brinkley told Newsweek that he felt Obama needed a "bullhorn moment" like Bush had in the rubble of the World Trade Center after 9/11.

It's not an easy time to be President. Particularly when you happen to be black, and, unfortunately, many more ignorant, misguided or bigoted people make matters harder than they'd be otherwise. I'm just tired of people blaming Obama for everything. He's made mistakes, but, he's done some good things, and he's smart and energetic and tackling every problem he can.

So, I urge the news media to lower expectations for Obama and raise them for Sarah Palin. Just tell the truth and we'll all be better off.

Can the Boston Celtics Shock the World?

If, by chance, the Boston Celtics go on to defeat the Los Angeles Lakers in the NBA Finals to win the championship, it will be one of the most amazing sports stories in the past 50 years.

That's right. A Celtics title would be way up there on the list of extraordinary accomplishments for all team sports. I think basketball writers are waiting before they make claims like I just did. Many B-ball observers are still stunned the Celtics knocked off the Cleveland Cavaliers and are playing with a focus not seen for their entire season. Hey, I know millions of basketball fans hate the Celtics. They're still sick of them for assorted reasons.......but, no one can deny that the Celtics are on a unique path right now. They're doing something that happens about once every 20 years: They're playing MUCH better in the playoffs than they did all year - and, that feels like an understatement.

Sure, I've seen baseball teams play mediocre ball in September and go on to win the World Series, (Witness the New York Yankees, who did that about ten years ago) but, I'm sorry, folks: this Celtics' run is unlike anything I can remember as a sports fan. Why?

Because a few short weeks ago, the Celtics stunk. They stunk. They were playing horribly, and, worse, they appeared to be not even trying that hard. In fact, this Celtics team played a lot of bad games in their entire second half of the 2009-10 season. They lost to teams like the New Jersey Nets and had people scratching their heads or just plain disgusted.

Yet, at the same time, their "Big Three" of Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen were never all healthy at the same time. Garnett was a much less effective player for much of the year and talk radio callers were giving up on the Cs' chances. Pierce had an array of injuries and ailments. Rasheed Wallace, acquired in an off-season deal to bolster the team, played badly all year long.

Then, as spring came, there were a few signs that something "different" might be unfolding. Lebron James and the Cavaliers crushed the Celts in a regular season game, and, afterward, James remarked that the Celtics seemed "bored." People speculated they were waiting for the playoffs. They didn't seem to care about their regular-season record.

Coach Doc Rivers spoke about trying to conserve his veteran players's strength. Boston Globe columnist Dan Shaughnessy was in a tiny minority when, a couple of months ago, he predicted the Celts would "flip the switch" and end up winning the championship despite all the bad signs.

I don't always agree with Shaughnessy, but, I have to give him credit on that prediction right now.

The Celtics, so far, have defied all the odds. They've jarred the basketball media and fans who said they didn't have a prayer. First, they knocked off the Miami Heat. Then, in an incredible showing, they decisively defeated the Cavaliers and Lebron James. Rajon Rondo, the Celts' point guard, is showing the country what Boston fans have seen all year - i.e. That he's one of the best point guards in the NBA, and, to many, the Celtics' most valuable player -- ahead of Pierce, Garnett and shooting guard, Ray Allen.

I did not watch the Celtics for most of the season. I have not followed the NBA much since the Bird-Magic days. I think that games are often boring - as players make too many one-on-one moves or take three-point shots instead of passing the all around - which is so much more fun to watch. However, I watched enough of the Cs to know they were not that good a team in the second half.

I've been in awe of what the Celtics have showed in the playoffs so far. They look like a different team - and, I mean, different. I've felt like I'm having an hallucination. The Celtics are hungry, hustling and playing together more. How could they be THIS different?

Garnett somehow, some way, is playing by far his best basketball of the year. He improved despite his nagging knee injury. How often does a player improve significantly from the effects of an injury like that? Pierce, while not as consistent as in 2008, looks rejuventated and has played terrifically in some key playoff games. Ray Allen, who the Cs were considering trading a few months ago, is shooting as well as ever. Rondo is emerging as a unique point guard. Not only does he "quarterback" the team with fantastic on-court vision and decisionmaking, but he hustles in special ways: How many 6' 1" guards get as many big rebounds? Answer: I've never seen any guard at Rondo's height do this - ever.

The Celtics are playing with a zeal and focus for 48 minutes a game. They didn't come close to that all year. Obviously, the veterans want another ring badly and their younger teammates have the same "fever."

Reports have surfaced about "chemistry problems" that existed between the younger and older, veteran players on the team during the year. More specifically, the speculation has been that it took the veterans quite a while to hand over control of the team, in earnest, to Rondo.

Not only am I shocked the Celtics are on the verge of playing the Lakers in the Finals, but, I am shocked to be sitting here believing they have a chance. I do believe it now. I think it's still definitely against the odds. I think the Lakers have more talent and should win. But, this Celtic team is on a special mission - and, they may pull off an incredible upset.

That's one reason I love sports. I love when the underdog team wins. Yes, my favorite underdog win was the Red Sox 2004 comeback vs. the NY Yankees after they were down 0-3 and losing going into the 9th against Mariano Rivera.

I loved it when Kirk Gibson came off the bench to hit the heroic home run off Dennis Eckersley in the World Series. I loved it when Muhammad Ali knocked out George Foreman when no one gave him a chance. I loved it when the New England Patriots knocked off the St. Louis Rams in Tom Brady's first Super Bowl. I loved it when the 1967 Red Sox, after finishing in 9th place in 1966, had their "Impossible Dream" year and won the pennant on the last day of the season thanks to the non-stop heroics of Carl Yastrzemski and Jim Lonborg and then took the more talented St. Louis Cardinals, with Bob Gibson, to the 7th game of the World Series before losing.

I won't go on, but, I think people are not "getting it" about this Boston Celtic team. Despite all the Celtics' championships through the years and all their great players, this particular team, in many ways, has no business reaching the moment they're about to --- heading into the Finals.

This team doesn't have the youth, talent or consistency that other teams had in 2009-10. They have suddenly racheted up the quality of their play radically and are shutting down the league's best teams with their old smothering defense. The Celtics seem to be "turning back time."

If they go all the way, it will be one of the most improbable things I've ever seen in sports - period.

."