In Praise of Jimmy Carter's Candor on Racism

I applaud Jimmy Carter for speaking his mind this week about the role of race in some of the disturbing, extremist reactions to President Barack Obama recently. Carter made his comments after US Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst in the middle of Obama's recent health care speech to a joint session of the US Congress. Wilson, a South Carolina Republican, shouted "You lie" at Obama, jarring his colleagues and those of us watching on television. Wilson's behavior was VERY unusual, and, it followed, in disturbing fashion, a summer when Obama's appearances had attracted a variety of other negative, occasionally bizarre responses from some individuals in his audiences.

"I think it's based on racism," Carter said, in reply to a question during an event at his Carter Center in Atlanta. "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."
Carter also said that Wilson's outburst was part of a troubling trend of harsh criticisms directed at Obama by demonstrators - including individuals who have compared Obama to Nazi leaders.
"Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care," Carter said. "It's deeper than that."

Carter said what many US senators and Representatives are afraid to say. In fact, afterward, a few Democrats went out of their way to distance themselves immediately from the former president's comments. Those Democratic politicians quoted were totally unconvincing in trying to claim anti-Obama reactions were innocent and issue-driven.

It seems fairly obvious there is "an element" of Obama critics who are motivated by race. I wish more of our elected leaders - Republicans and Democrats - were willing to identify these individuals for who they are. It'd be nice if they had the courage and principle to complain about racist comments or behavior. Instead, most politicians these days avoid any sensitive issues -- so, I guess it's unsurprising they're silent about racism.

Well, I'm tired of it. I wish more people would follow Jimmy Carter's lead. Why the hell were some white individuals showing up with deplorable, hateful messages on posters at some Obama events on health care this summer? Why are right-wing, reckless, obnoxious radio and
television talk show hosts so harshly and crudely ripping President Obama non-stop -- no matter what he's actually doing in office?

We are living in a strange time when it comes to what's tolerated or not. (I wrote about this last week). I criticized TV reactionary Glenn Beck, who had called President Obama " a racist" on a television talk show. Well, this week, Time Magazine decided to put Glenn Beck on its cover. Typical. Today's media organizations - like Time - make their decisions on the entertainment level or ratings potential of a topic rather than whether it's newsworthy, in context or deserves attention at all. Beck does NOT deserve any attention - or, a talk show.

My reaction, when I heard of former President Carter's quote was: "It's about time someone of stature spoke up about this."

I understand that Obama and his advisors do not want to raise the issue of race. Imagine if Obama, himself, argued that racism was a factor in his struggle to increase support for one of his positions or actions. He'd receive overwhelming criticism. HOWEVER, I do not accept the silence of everyone else, particularly elected officials and those with influence and power in all sectors of society who could impact the dialogue on race relations.

I was glad to read a terrific Sept. 13th piece by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who ripped into US Rep. Joe Wilson for his outburst during Obama's speech. Dowd, like Jimmy Carter, waded right into the topic of race, and, took it further by raising questions about Wilson's possible motivations and his record on race-related matters.

Consider this excerpt from Dowd's column:

"...The congressman, we learned, belonged to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, led a 2000 campaign to keep the Confederate flag waving above South Carolina's state Capitol and denounced as a "smear" the true claim of a black woman that she was the daughter of Strom Thurmond, the '48 segregationist candidate for president. Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber."
Then, Dowd commented further:

"I've been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer -- the frantic efforts to paint our first black president as the Other, a foreigner, socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi; a cad who would snuff old people; a snake who would indoctrinate kids -- had much to do with race........But Wilson's shocking disrespect for the office of the president -- no Democrat ever shouted "liar" at W. when he was hawking a false case for war in Iraq -- convinced me: Some people just can't believe a black man is president and will never accept it....."

Dowd is right on the money. I wish it weren't so, but, I feel that in the past couple of months, we're seeing some more blatant signs of racism against Obama. You can see it in the surprising disgust or venom that shows up in negative comments of Obama critics.

The recent racial dynamics confronting Obama remind me of the obstacles he overcame during the 2008 presidential campaign. I still believe people have overlooked the extent to which Obama had to rise above the constant presence of racism in both the primary and general election campaign. I recall - during Obama's battle vs. Hillary Clinton - how Bill Clinton was often assigned to campaign aggressively for white votes in little rural towns of certain states where racism remained a large factor. I recall how, in my home state of Massachusetts, Hillary won overwhelming margins of victory against Obama in many medium-sized, blue-collar cities where one would have expected Obama to do much better. Race was an important factor, in my view. Then, of course, there were Democratic primaries in states like Kentucky and West Virgina - where Hillary was ahead by 30 points weeks before the event, remained ahead by that margin, and, then, won by the same whopping margin. Many voters there, clearly, had made up their minds about Obama and were not predisposed to change. I wonder why.

And, who can forget some of the despicable tactics used by John McCain and Sarah Palin in the general election campaign against Obama. I can recall Palin, a hopeless candidate who deserved far tougher scrutiny of her own record, trying in repeated appearances, to portray Obama as "an outsider" who couldn't be trusted. Indeed, though I expected even worse, McCain and Palin did little to avoid rhetoric that stirred anxieties about race.

As I observe Obama's presidency, I will never forget the obstacles he overcame to win the election. I still believe that many Americans give him a smaller margin for error as President because he is black. Obama faces more challenges and constraints all the time due to his race. Let's hope that when a minority of his critics display racial prejudice, that others will speak up - like Jimmy Carter did - and help discourage others from doing the same thing.

It's Time for People to Speak Out Against Right-wing Extremism

How did people in this country get so passive and indifferent about crazy things said or done by extreme right-wingers?

What does it take for someone to stand up and say "Hey, that guy just said something unacceptable to me. I object to it and I want to help stop that person from repeating that crap" ?

I ask this in response to some of the extreme, repulsive remarks or actions by right-wing individuals aimed at President Obama during the past month or two. The ratings-driven television news media has chosen to cover these rants as "news" and failed to present them as the irresponsible acts they are. (The Right, historically, takes advantage of the superficial, entertainment-dominated news the most often).

There are too many examples to cover, but, here are a few that drew my attention:

1) First, the continuing efforts of a tiny, tiny minority of people to raise questions about whether President Obama was born in the United States -- the so-called "birthers" - who, for some puzzling reason, have continued to get covered by the national media. There's NOTHING to the questions - so, there should be NO more stories. Period.

2) The people who inexcusably carried guns outside town hall forum events where Obama spoke on a few occasions this summer. This, apparently, was some sort of sick way of drawing attention and making a point, I guess. I just know I heard too small an outcry of protest about this display of guns. It was a low moment that should've been rejected and criticized more harshly.

3) The ugly, unacceptable comments made by right-wing TV talk show host, Glenn Beck.

4) The ludicrous, incredibly disturbing attention paid to an initially very tiny protest of concern about President Obama's remarks made to the nations' schoolchildren on Sept. 8th. This mushroomed into a large story, thanks to the media coverage. (More on this in a second).

Right-wing radio and TV talk show hosts know, all too well, what drives the nation's news media in 2009: It's ENTERTAINMENT and that means whatever constitutes entertainment - even it the content is false, misleading, distorted or reckless. These entertainers who pretend to be "journalists" know that in this Internet-dominated news arena, the consumers of information have a VERY short attention span. So, if one of them makes an off-the-cuff remark that's inaccurate or offends some group, that's OK, he rationalizes. The specifics will be "forgotten" or will fade a few hours later -- and the initial impact is what counts, anyway.

Well, when I was growing up, it was NOT enough to simply be "entertaining." A news organization felt obligated to have at least some credibility and responsibility. It attempted to show respect and decency for other people in its coverage. These standards don't apply in 2009.

So, I guess this helps explain how an idiot like Glenn Beck can somehow use a fraudulent "shock-jock" formula to attract attention, get a show, and attract ratings. However, when Beck back in late July, called President Obama "a racist" without providing any substantiation, I didn't accept that - and I don't accept that he should even have a show now. Do you recall what he said?

Beck, in a July 28th appearance on Fox and Friends, said that Obama "had a deep-seated hatred of white people or the white culture." He added: "I'm not saying that he doesn't like white people. I'm saying that he has a problem. This guy, is, I believe, a racist.."

Then, Beck's comment was circulated and discussed, when it should have been condemned and dismissed instantaneously. I think he should've been fired for such an off-base, ugly, unacceptable remark ---particularly when he made it so deliberately - with his eyes wide open.

While that Beck comment was "off-the-charts BAD," some of his right-wing peers - Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham and Bill O'Reilly, to name only a few examples - tend to routinely attack Obama in excessive, hysterical fashion. Often, these or other right-wing hosts describe "liberals" as if they're dangerous inhabitants of another planet. A number have continued calling Obama or his policies "socialist" even though it's an embarrassingly FALSE label. Is anyone intelligent listening out there? Do members of the audience know or care if this crap is spouted all day long?

These and other right-wing hosts use the most juvenile, stupid approaches to draw attention: Name-calling, exaggerating, lying, distorting, sensationalizing. They cleverly attach their extreme language to real-life news and strands of truth or reality in order to create an appearance of relevance when, in fact, much of their content is so false or out of context that it's serves no good purpose.

Consider the fuss that was made over Obama's remarks to school children on Sept. 8th.

First, some conservative got all up tight about a draft of the plans for Obama's remarks included a proposed "lesson plan" that made a reference to giving students a chance to volunteer ideas or ways to "help the President." It was clear to most that there was no bad intent here -- no effort to score political points; but, soon, right-wingers were spreading claims that Obama was trying to "indoctrinate" children and "promote his agenda" in an inappropriate way. Soon, news stories covering these unsubstantiated claims, fears and speculation began multiplying and a controversy was created out of nothing.

A few public officials actually stirred the pot, including Jim Greer, the Republican Party chairman in Florida, who was said he "was appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread Presiden Obama's socialist ideology." Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who reportedly has presidential aspirations, said the thought Obama's planned remarks were "disruptive."

The White House tried to reassure people the President's remarks were aimed at inspiring kids to be responsible, but, the story was off to the races. I think it was largely a "media-created" episode. I find it hard to believe there were thousands of "concerned parents" out there -- or, at least as many "concerned parents" as suggested by news accounts. For instance, the New York Times ran a Page One story on Sept. 4th headlined: "Obama's Plan for School Talk Ignites a Revolt," but, while the article reported anecdotal responses of concern or protest from citizens, it cited no evidence that large numbers of Americans had been impacted at all by this matter.

More importantly, when Obama actually spoke on Sept. 8th, his remarks were without controversy or politics; rather, his statement was what his advisors had promised -- a pitch to students about the importance of taking responsibility. Obama did a great job, by the way.

After I watched Obama on the 8th, my wish was that all the right-wing talk shows be held accountable for their false, irresponsible claims about Obama's speech. The entire episode illustrated how ridiculous the world of talk shows and media have become. Of course, we've seen evidence of this during public debate over health care reform too.

Right-wingers have leveled many wild, inaccurate charges and criticisms at President Obama as a way to hurt his chances to win a victory over health care. Perhaps the worst claim - taken up by former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin - that, under Obama's plan, there would be "death panels" that would decide the fate of senior citizens at the end of their lives.

President Obama, in his Sept. 9th speech to a joint session of Congress, finally confronted this bluntly by saying the following.

"Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claims, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It's a lie, plain and simple."

Perhaps Obama learned a lesson about the need to respond far more directly and immediately in simple language that ensure everyone will at least hear the truth. (I think one unfortunate reality is that a segment of the right-wing "attacks" on Obama is due to an undercurrent of racism. The prejudice is manifested in negative or hateful rhetoric that, on the surface, targets other Obama-related topics).

In today's world covered by entertainment-driven media, leaders - including President Obama - must be swift and clear about clarifying misunderstandings and lies.

It's time the rest of us did our part to help label and reject irresponsible comments from the Right. Speak up and put an end to irresponsible, right-wing extremism !!

Can Obama Still Get Meaningful Health Care Reform?

Surely, Barack Obama didn't expect to be stuck in such an awful quagmire over health care reform as he heads into Labor Day weekend in his first year as President. He expected a hard battle, but, probably, not this nightmare.

Much of the resistance goes with the territory. There are too many powerful special interests in health care that can block attempted change at every corner. However, Obama and his team have made the prospects for genuine, large-scale reform much less likely than they had to be. For a President who has excelled in communicating with the public, Obama often has appeared vague and indecisive. He has appeared cautious and passive rather than bold and strong.

It has been extremely difficult to follow the story of health care reform. That's partly due to the fact that so much of the "action" of this story goes on behind the scenes, beneath the radar. It involves lobbying and more lobbying. It involves money and influence. It involves political muscling and dealmaking. What information bubbles to the surface is all that we, the citizens, see, and, usually, it's an incredibly incomplete picture. The typically flawed news reporting on this issue has only increased the murkiness.

Despite this incomplete picture and my limited knowledge of health care policy, I'll attempt to list some central factors that have impacted the evolution of this policy drama.

1. Obama's strategic decision to "let the Congress shape the legislation" has backfired quite a bit. On the one hand, it seemed understandable that Obama didn't want to repeat the Clintons' mistake of attempting to develop a reform package from inside the White House. Obama wanted Congress to help shape, and, later, "own" the product of its work. However, Obama has chosen to avoid asserting his own views and priorities on the significant aspects of health care reform for far too long. This has made him appear weak and directionless on an issue that he harped on - with authority and principle - as a candidate in 2008. Plus, Obama's choice to stay above the fray has allowed the debate to be unnecessarily aimless, unfocused, noisy, reckless, distracted, and, often, unpleasant or obnoxious. The Republicans, the Party of "No" have been allowed to create mischief on a near-daily basis -- partly as a result of the White House "letting the Congress shape the legislation." The Republicans' only mission is to defeat Obama.

2. Obama has failed to explain why we have to have health care reform. He has failed to identify his own largest reasons. Is it to help the uninsured - particularly those millions of people of low or moderate income? If so, one cannot easily conclude this from Obama's town hall forums. Yes, he mentions it, but he mentions A LOT of things and that's the problem. He has desparately needed a "mantra" - a rallying cry -- a few top goals to group together in a slogan or argument.

3. Obama has not clearly identified his allies and opponents. Who is he fighting for? Against? I'm sure he'd reply he's helping "the American people," but, again, his rhetoric has not been clear, strong and focused in that regard. Has he been railing (enough) against HMOs or the pharmaceutical industry? I don't think so. He speaks in generalities about the system, but, surely, he knows, as a former community organizer and communicator, his Administration's argument would be more compelling if it were urging us to stop some opposing force or industry. It helps to rally people against a big, bad target or "enemy."

4. Isn't it a sign of trouble that several of Obama's largest informal "allies" for reform are the most "mainstream" health care entities imaginable -- i.e. the pharmaceutical industry, the AMA, (the largest physicians' organization) or, hospitals? Recently, according to an original, thorough article by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone on health care reform, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America "...announced that the industry would contribute an estimated $150 million to campaign for Obamacare..." (www.rollingstone.com/issue1086) Taibbi details many troubling aspects of the impact of behind-the-scenes lobbying on the ongoing "debate" in Congress.

5. Obama and his team have done a particularly poor job trying to explain "the public option." In a year when the public has grown wary and hostile toward the idea of additional federal government intervention, it became even more important for the Administration to explain "the public option" very clearly, carefully, and patiently. One priority should've been to emphasize that it will NOT result in a harmful intrusion by the government, but, rather, a way of ensuring people get their choice of coverage. Obama and his team have been far too casual about showing the American people how this reform effort will not bankrupt us by creating tremendous new deficits. They'll have to do this in the weeks ahead if they are to succeed.

6. In a closely related way, the Obama team has never shown a sufficient acknowledgement that, in a year of the economic stimulus package - a measure with results that've been hard to see and measure - of course, the public would be skeptical of the federal government playing a much greater role in the provision of health care.

7. There has been a dramatic shortage of strong "surrogates" speaking in support of the Obama Administration's efforts. This has been a weakness that characterized the period before the vote on the stimulus too. Why do I hear so much about Republicans' reactions to every little development on health care without seeing and hearing showings of strong support and rhetoric from Obama supporters? I'm referring, in particular, to Democratic US senators and Democratic US House members, who have been remarkably silent. I don't think that's a coincidence. Many Congressmen base their behavior solely on protecting their own interests. They are, unfortunately, not generally the least bit courageous or bold. They avoid risks at all costs. Too often, this story has presented Obama on one side -- speaking in generalities -- and a wide array of critics on the other side who are all too willing to spout any reckless, irresponsible criticism, attack or distracting remark at the Obama side. Worsening matters is that the Republican Party has become a tiny group of politicians unwilling to engage in thoughtful debate on anything. They should be irrelevant, but, they've had more success at attracting media coverage than their quiet, passive, unimpressive counterparts -- even though the Democrats outnumber them by a tremendous margin and possess strategic advantages.

8. While I mention the failings of Democrats, I must stress that their collective effort was obviously much more needed given the timing that Obama has chosen for this. Obama, understandably, felt if he had a shot at health care, it probably had to come in his first year - after his historic victory and the peaking of good will from the American people. Yet, after he had to grapple with the economic crisis non-stop in his early months, he lost some key momentum and credibility. He needed - but, received very little - outspoken support from Democratic allies to back him up in the uphill - "against-the-wind" effort to reform health care. I believe that even if Obama gets a watered-down bill in 2009, he deserves at least some credit for choosing to take this issue on in a time of tremendous economic stress for the country.

9. Obama seems to have adopted an approach aimed at alienating as few people as possible. He seems to want it both ways. On occasion, he'll speak of the big changes needed, but, at the same time, he fails to identify - specifically - who and what players and entities within the system must change the way they do business. For a "populist" sort of argument, Obama sure hasn't sounded like a populist. A populist has to rally people against something or someone mistreating or hurting them -- whether it's Big Business or whoever. I have not hear Obama rail against any of the "bad players" in the health care world in a way that's as compelling as it could be. I suspect that's because the Obama team has been "working with" some major players in health care AND Obama has tried to keep too many parties in the arena happy, when, in fact, a leader of a reform effort CANNOT keep pleasing everyone; in fact, if that leader is generating momentum, he or she will probably made some real enemies and created deep anger and tension and conflict. How can a major reform drive amount to much WITHOUT that kind of opposition or side-effects?

10. The Obama team has not presented good, clear arguments even to me - and I'm an enthusiastic Obama supporter. I still receive emails from the Obama grassroots group, "Organizing for America" and what I've noticed is the same general presentation that lacks an edge. (They fail to identify often enough what, specifically, needs to be replaced or changed!) If the Obama people - both in the White House and those leading the Obama grass roots machine - have not shared a clear "rallying cry" that has captured my attention, that's a bad sign.

Don't get me wrong. I support major health care reform and I hope the Obama administration will force through as strong a bill as possible. I just want Obama to stand up and show more leadership on this issue - NOW, before it's too late.

Kennedy Endorsement of Obama Was Special

As US Sen. Edward Kennedy struggles to hang on in his battle with cancer, I've thought back on one of his better days last year. For me, it became perhaps the most memorable moment of Ted Kennedy's career.

It was the moment when Teddy chose to endorse Barack Obama early in Obama's 2008 presidential primary campaign against Hillary Clinton. Obama had just won the South Carolina primary decisively on Jan. 26th, but he was still relatively unknown nationally and faced a steep, uphill fight against Clinton on Super Tuesday. At that moment, he needed all the help he could get - and the Kennedys, Ted and his niece, Caroline, stepped forward.

Ted Kennedy's endorsement "piggy-backed" his niece Caroline's dramatic endorsement of Obama in an op-ed piece in the Jan. 27, 2008 edition of the New York Times. Caroline wrote that Obama could inspire people the way her father had back in the 1960s.

The next day, Jan. 28th, Caroline and Ted Kennedy appeared with Obama at American University in Washington DC, and, Ted didn't just go through the motions in his remarks. He gave a fiery speech that passionately rebutted each of the misleading claims Clinton had been making about Obama. Clinton had been getting away with distortions hurled at Obama, but, on this day, Kennedy took her on and knocked down her false claims. In doing so, Kennedy threw his experience, clout and family name behind Obama with full force at a moment when Obama truly needed it.

Kennedy said Obama was "ready to be President on Day One" -- dismissing Clinton's charge that Obama was inexperienced. Kennedy said "from the beginning, he (Obama) opposed the war in Iraq. And let no one deny that truth..." (Clinton had suggested Obama's opposition was less pure)

Kennedy told the crowd that Obama represented "a new era" and a rejection of "old politics."

I recall, vividly, watching Kennedy's remarks. As an Obama supporter, I was so thrilled. I knew how desparately Obama needed a boost right then and this was like a dream come true. At that time, Clinton had more endorsements in the US House and Senate than Obama, and, more strikingly, she had FAR greater name recognition in the large states at stake in Super Tuesday. Indeed, one could sense that if Obama lost badly to Clinton on Super Tuesday, his candidacy would likely spiral downward. The Kennedys' move stood WAY out in the period before Super Tuesday and attracted a wave of positive media coverage over a number of days.

Hillary and Bill Clinton were jarred by Kennedy's move. Others were surprised, particularly because Kennedy had acted swiftly without signalling his intentions. The Clintons felt they had done much to help Teddy in the past. At the same time, Kennedy reportedly was genuinely upset by Clinton campaign tactics, including using the race card in South Carolina. To me, the fact that Kennedy made the choice in spite of his longstanding relationship with the Clintons made it all sweeter.

Do you remember how vulnerable Obama was at that moment? I doubt it because I've discussed this with many people who had forgotten the dynamics before Super Tuesday. Obama was a newcomer. He was viewed as young, inexperienced and untested. And, let's not forget: He was the nation's first, serious black candidate with a chance to win the presidency - a very different candidate than Jesse Jackson was in 1984 or 1988.

Obama had to thread the needle on Super Tuesday - i.e. win just enough states to minimize the impact of Hillary winning most of the largest states. Yet, without Ted Kennedy's endorsement and a few other key breaks, Obama might have never pulled it off.

Obama ended up winning 13 states on Super Tuesday while Clinton won eight. Yet, to this day, I don't think enough emphasis has been placed on the unlikelihood of how he did this. Many of his 13 states held caucuses - for which the Obama team had outorganized the Clinton campaign. Somehow, some way, the media - which was obsessed, as always, with the delegate totals, zero-ed in on Obama's tiny delegate lead over Clinton after Super Tuesday - even though she had won California, New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts. Even in these big states he lost, Obama won many delegates in districts his campaign had targeted, thus lessening the damage.

Then, later, even after Hillary won primaries in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, Obama hung on by solidifying support among "super-delegates" and holding on to delegates he'd won in caucuses.

In the end, Obama barely beat Clinton. He won because of his margin among delegates and because he gradually convinced US senators and House members, who are super delegates, to support him rather than Clinton.

Would Obama have pulled it off without that critical endorsement of Ted Kennedy back in late January? Probably.....but, I'd still argue that Teddy's endorsement was a pivotal moment in what was the most exciting presidential primary campaign of my life other than perhaps the 1968 Democratic race.

Endorsements usually do not carry the same weight they used to in all kinds of political campaigns; however, I will never forget the way Ted Kennedy came through in the clutch for Barack Obama by passionately endorsing him in early 2008.

Gates Saga Aftermath and Midsummer Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gates Episode Triggers Disturbing Reactions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Must Shake "Big Government" Label

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Random Musings on July 8th

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Random Musings on June 30th

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reactions to Events Unfolding in Iran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sox-Yanks Rivalry Is Still Exciting

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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