Mystery Abounds in the Amy Bishop Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Milbank Column On Emanuel Offers Rare Glimpse

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

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

First, the column says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Needs to Act More and Talk Less

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Howard Zinn's Death

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

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

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

Zinn stood out - that's for sure.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coakley Didn't Go Down Fighting for Her Beliefs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

Does the truth matter any more?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ten Random Wishes for the New Year

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I Haven't Cared About the Tiger Woods Story

I guess I'm in a tiny minority, but, I just haven't gotten caught up in the recent Tiger Woods story. Now, it's true the media frenzy has subsided in the past ten days or so, but, any new development would probably cause it to percolate again. The coverage of Woods' extra-marital affairs - which surfaced following Tiger's car accident around Thanksgiving time - was obsessive, sensational and out-of-control.

None of that was surprising in this day and age. Particularly when a sports hero of Tiger's stature ran into these sort of personal problems. (A "perfect storm" for today's entertainment-driven media)

I grew tired of this story after the first few days. Yes, I was surprised and interested, at first, to learn about Woods having so many affairs with different women. That was unusual, but, after his multiple philandering became clear, I lost interest.

Now, I think part of this is because I'm not a Tiger Woods fan, or, even, a golf fan...but, I realized, as the saga unfolded, that there was something else affecting my sensibility around this story.

It was the context that goes with disclosure of adultery by a public figure. I realized I've learned about so many, many public figures - including many politicians - having affairs that the cumulative impact has caused me to have some burnout or indifference on this topic. Nothing surprises me anymore. I mean: What have we not heard at this point? It was hard to top President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky's escapades. Let's see, in the past year or two, we've had stories about former NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer, former US Sen. John Edwards, US Sen. John Ensign, Gov. Mark Sanford. I still recall the media's crushing coverage of Gary Hart's affairs in 1987. So, the "novelty" of the media aggressively exposing someone's affair is a thing of the past, but, other aspects of this phenomenon bother me.

I've grown tired of how the public and media so, so enjoy feasting on the flaws, problems and vulnerabilities of public people, who, after all, are human beings first and celebrities second. The issues around the adultery and marital difficulties and crises of public figures are personal. They have no impact on the rest of us. Our lives are not impacted.

Yet, when you watch the television media, in particular, report on the day-to-day developments relating to a story, or, soap opera such as Tiger Woods' recent struggles, they report the news as if it is something of such magnitude and immediacy that we all should know - we all need to know about all the details. What a farce. They should put a subtitle at the bottom of your TV screen that says: "Covering Tiger Woods' affairs helps our ratings - that's why we're doing this."

I understand that one can argue that a limited amount of reporting on this Woods story might be "justified" on some level, but, no one can convince me that most of the coverage has been necessary or natural or right. I've felt this way more and more about these adultery stories.

The problem is we've all grown accustomed to the blurring of boundaries - which, years ago, used to separate entertainment from news, and, yes, public figures' personal lives from being juxtaposed next to foreign policy developments in newscasts.

I'm always reminded of how the coverage of the OJ Simpson trial in the mid-1990s marked a turning point downward in how the media began to glaringly blur the line between news and entertainment. It began with the networks providing OJ's live Bronco chase to the minute-by-minute reporting of the trial - as if it was all-encompassing news story greatly impacting all of our well-being.

I guess the coverage of Tiger Woods has just reminded me of how disgusted I am with television news coverage in this country. I cannot believe the extent to which attempting to attract higher ratings drives everything from local weather forecasts to excessive coverage of murder stories to repeating reckless public statements of people without identifying they are false. Similarly, I cannot believe how an obsession with ratings has helped create a climate that allows figures like reactionary Glenn Beck to survive, or, succeed on TV despite Beck's irresponsibility and tasteless low standards.

OK, maybe it's a leap to go from the Tiger Woods story to discussing Glenn Beck, but, to me, we live in a media environment that disregards the truth and rewards the sensational at any cost.

The Tiger Woods story, unfortunately, will probably receive coverage for a long time, because it simply attracts ratings too high to be ignored. And, the ratings, unfortunately, are all that counts.

Obama Has Made Mistakes, But Let's Not Forget W.

The news media and the public need more perspective as they evaluate Barack Obama these days.

Obama and the Democrats have been sliding downward in the polls in the past several months. Of course, the continuing economic recession, the war in Afghanistan and the messy, unproductive struggle over health care reform have contributed to the President's vulnerability. I think Obama deserves serious criticism for his decision to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and his lack of leadership in the health care debate.

But, you know what? I'm getting tired of the non-stop attacks from the Right and the other whiners and moaners who seem to think Obama is to blame for everything in the universe - including the H1N1 virus.

I just read George Will's Dec. 17th column that ripped Obama, and it was the "last straw." Among Will's complaints about Obama is his observation that Obama, in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, used the pronoun "I" 38 times. Will also notes that "...the fruits of the president's policy of "engagement" have been meager. Witness Iran continuing its nuclear program and China being difficult about carbon emissions...."

Is Will suggesting that it's inexcusable for Obama to have not forced Iran to shut down its nuclear program by now? Or, that another president would have gotten China to do whatever the US wished on carbon emissions? Give me a break! This is what I cannot stand about right-wingers, who seem to, sadly, dominate the airwaves far too often: They're routinely selective about which truths to share and which to disregard. Often, they don't bring up Bush's eight years and the tremendous damage his administration did.

Excuse me Mr. Will, but, would you argue that George W. Bush did a better job "managing" the US relationship with Iran? Bush took unnecessary military action by invading Iraq and did enough "sabre-rattling" with Iran to further poison our relationship with Iran. Bush and his White House chose to spew hawkish rhetoric toward Iran and seemed to suggest the US longed to go to war with Iran. Gee, that helped the US and Iran a lot, didn't it, Mr. Will?

Meanwhile, Obama came in and openly spoke of his willingness to try talking with Iran while, at the same time, seeing how Iran behaved. Now, after nearly a year of Iran being unresponsive, Obama is in a much stronger position with countries around the world to pursue economic sanctions against Iran, if necessary, because he handled the relationship carefully and thoughtfully.
Would you dispute that, George Will? You'd probably say - without factual back-up - that somehow, Obama worsened the situation and that you prefer the tough (reckless) talk of Dick Cheney. I don't know. I'm just sick of everyone blaming Obama for everything.

Let's pretend we have an imaginary checklist and let's compare Obama with George W Bush:

• Obama is more intelligent. Far more.
• Obama is more capable, across the board. Far more.
• Obama has demonstrated a greater capacity to listen to others, including those who disagree with him - while Bush failed to do this, particularly in his decision to invade Iraq.
• An illustration: Obama presided over a careful, thorough review before his decision on Afghanistan (though I disagree with his conclusion!) while Bush reportedly spoke with very few who dissented (with him) on Iraq.
• Obama has done FAR MORE to improve the US' image and relationship with the rest of the world. Bush's actions and policies hurt the US' image in many parts of the world.
• Obama is "hands-on." He gives us a sense that he's "on top of things" - In fact, he's similar to former President Bill Clinton in his impressive, sweeping command of facts. Bush was, disturbingly vague about numerous topics and conveyed a sense that without his cue-cards, he'd be LOST, and, I mean LOST. I still believe Cheney and others ran the country more than Bush. Bush was the "puppet" who others manipulated.
• Obama is an outstanding speaker who can inspire in prepared remarks AND speak articulately and directly in responding to specific queries on policy. Bush could do neither and often had to defer to others to respond with details.
• Obama has shown he can remain "in the fray" on a number of fronts simultaneously while keeping his cool and advancing action and change. Bush did not show a similar capacity - at least in public. He gave the impression he was the "front man" for a group of men who made the real decisions in the corridors of the White House.

I could go on and on - and, you could too. We've forgotten how low our expectations fell during the Bush years. It was a hopeless feeling. You had the sense decisions were made secretly and the Administration was not listening.

Obama has serious flaws - like every President - but, it's all relative. He arrived with the country on the brink of another Depression. His administration helped ward off a Depression, but, it wasn't done easily or without some ugly setbacks. The stimulus bill was flawed and has been implemented with those problems on full display.

Yet, I don't recall a President in my lifetime who had to wrestle with more pressing domestic and foreign policy matters on the fly during his first year. It has been a roller coaster ride for Obama. His decision on Afghanistan, has been, by far, his worst move, in my view. Also, his effort to get a comprehensive health care reform bill passed has unraveled badly. The bill now seems so flawed and watered down that its value and potential impact have diminished. Obama chose to stay in the background during almost the entire debate. He has failed to step up and assert what he believes MUST stay in the health care bill or not. He and his team have failed to lead the US representatives and senators and other involved parties; instead, the debate for months has been out-of-control and created an impression that the White House is not in charge.

In the end, however, I prefer Obama not only over Bush, but, a number of other Presidents because of the strengths he DOES have. What I am tired of is the avalanche of disproportionate criticism and attacks that has been directed at Obama. I believe a sizeable portion of that venom is due to racism. Another portion, I think, is due to the short attention span of the news media and the public. People want problems solved immediately and without making many sacrifices most of the time.

It's not an easy time to be President of the United States. If we're measuring the President's ups and downs constantly, let's do that by comparing him to others who have held the office most recently. I'm delighted Obama is our leader rather than George W. Bush or others who came before, and, also had flaws and made mistakes.

Obama's Disappointing Decision on Afghanistan

I oppose President Obama's decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan for many reasons, but, if I had to identify the most all-encompassing one, it's that I oppose war unless our national security is at risk. I don't think the President came anywhere close to making the case that such a risk exists during his speech at West Point last week.

Like most Americans, I have extremely limited knowledge of what's really going on in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and about developments with the Taliban, Al Qaeda or the reactions of the people who live in those two countries. There is, obviously, an enormous amount of information that Obama's team of military and foreign policy decisionmakers reviewed that the rest of us never saw - so, I base my opinions on the limited coverage I've seen on television or read in newspapers. The media, I think, presents an incomplete, oversimplified, often-confusing picture of what's going on in these countries.

However, I find the new US policy in Afghanistan troubling not only because the Obama Administration failed to justify putting the lives of thousands of US men and women at risk, but, failed to provide adequate answers to so many substantive questions about its escalation of military involvement. In addition, there are factors about how the decision evolved that concern me.

Here are just a few examples of my questions or concerns about Obama's decision:


1) The Obama administration has not sufficiently explained why Al Qaeda's presence in Pakistan and other countries amounts to a threat to our national security warranting 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, where all acknowledge, there are very few Al Qaeda members still located.

It seems the crux of Obama's policy is that by adding US troops, we'll train the Afghan troops, who will then be better-equipped to help prevent Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven to Al Qaeda. However, this is a "hypothetical deterrent" because, in fact, we don't know exactly what Al Qaeda will do if the Taliban presence in Afghanistan grows in power and influence. (We don't know exactly what the Taliban or Al Qaeda will do - period). Perhaps Al Qaeda will linger in Pakistan or go to other locations. So, Obama's policy is a hypothetical premise for war -- which is NOT enough.
Al Qaeda poses an ongoing threat to the US - as do other terrorist groups, but, if we do NOT send these 30,000 troops, does Al Qaeda pose a significantly greater threat? I guess the US generals, military advisors and Obama's team are arguing "they might pose a greater threat in the future," but, that argument is NOT a rationale for escalating a war.

2) Did the US exhaust attempts to use diplomacy and non-military action or moves to address the problems in Afgahnistan?

Tom Hayden, former Chicago 7 leader and former California state senator, wrote a Dec. 1st piece for Nation in which he reported that some elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan might be willing to negotiate a "peace settlement" in the country "without safe havens for Al Qaeda..."
Instead, Hayden concluded, the US chose to pursue military action. Were there signs of potential - as Hayden wrote? I don't know, but, I hope the US pursued any opportunities for negotiating settlements of any kind.

There has been little news about efforts to negotiate anything in Afghanistan or Pakistan, but, does that mean we must assume any resolution will come only through continuous war?

3) Did President Obama provide enough evidence that, in fact, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan will be better in July 2011 (or, later, when our troops will likely leave) as a result of the 30,000 troops going there?

No, he did not. Obama and his military advisors are banking on the Afghan troops being ready to take responsibility after receiving training and assistance from US troops. However, let's face it: we simply don't know how that "training" and "readiness" will work out. It certainly seems very possible that either: a) Events might not evolve as the US predicts in terms of Al Qaeda rushing into Afghanistan if and when an increased Taliban presence evolves and provides a "safe haven;" or, b) Developments in Pakistan might unravel in ways we cannot anticipate given the tremendous instability there now, making our "surge" in Afghanistan less relevant.

4) Does the Obama administration have good reason to believe the corrupt Karzai government will be a "reliable partner" in resisting the Taliban?

Clearly, this is a weak part of the Administration's plan. At the same time, President Obama is hoping for the best from Karzai, he's saying things like "the days of providing a blank check" are over. Repeated reports have document the corruption and ineffectivenss of Karzai's government. How will Obama & the US transform Karzai's approach overnight? How can the US rely on this government for much of anything? Within days of Obama's speech, Karzai was voicing concern about the US withdrawing too early. It seems the US runs a tremendous risk, now, of taking on a role way too invasive and large in trying to implement its "policy" and that US effort is more likely to lead to resentment, resistance, hostility and non-cooperation from Afghan security forces and civilians. People in other countries don't like the US coming in and dictating what they need to do - period.

5) Obama has repeatedly pointed to Pakistan as the real object of US concern; yet, in Pakistan as well, there is much uncertainty over how an increased US military role in Afghanistan will make a difference.

It seems the Administration is trying hard, through the troop increase, to send a loud, clear signal to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan that "You won't be able to come into Afghanistan because we're shoring things up there..." Yet, again, is there enough evidence that we know the impact of this troop increase? Al Qaeda has resided primarily in Pakistan in the past few years, including on the border regions, but can the US really know Al Qaeda's next moves and destinations? A war has been raging much more in Pakistan between the Pakistan Army and Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan.

6) Reports have documented that Pakistan has, until the recent past, been unwilling to take on Al Qaeda in its own country. There is much turmoil in Pakistan. The US needs to work very hard to help Pakistan maintain stability without doing so in the role of "aggressive intervenor."

In my limited attempts to follow this story, I've been intrigued and troubled by the fact that Pakistan has lent its support to the Taliban in the past and often done little to attempt to quell or defeat Al Qaeda forces in its own country. Now, recently, the US has supposedly pressured Pakistan's army to take far more decisive action against Al Qaeda.. Clearly, the US can quietly provide much assistance.
The point is that Pakistan is the place we need to focus more now - not Afghanistan.

7) Therefore, a related point: Why couldn't the US restrict its involvement to: a) A much more focused effort to support Pakistan's "containment" of Al Qaeda in Pakistan; b) Continuing to support Pakistan's targeting of Al Qaeda leaders and halting of any moves by Al Qaeda that pose any threats to the government of Pakistan?

8) In the end, President Obama's action pleased the military and his Defense Secretary, but, was the President perhaps too influenced by the powerful US military, who - let's face it - usually advocate for more troops and more military action rather than the alternatives?

I thought Obama should have publicly scolded General Stanley McCrystal, when McCrystal came out, months ago, and publicly called for a large increase in troops. (He did this by leaking a document to the Washington Post) McCrystal was out of line and deserved a reprimand. Instead, in the end, McCrystal got most of the troops he wanted. What happened to the "Biden plan" - for sending a much, much smaller number of troops and focusing our efforts more on containing Al Qaeda? What happened to Obama, the "peace candidate" in 2008, when he espoused more common sense in our policy toward Iraq? It seems Obama, through this decisionmaking process, has morphed into "another conventional US President," who, in his desire to avoid risks, ends up following the influence of the military - and, in doing so - abandons his principles and good instincts.

9) How - after months of a careful, deliberative "review" of matters relating to his decision - can President Obama be so vague about whether and when the US troops will begin to withdraw in July, 2011?

In the week since his speech, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been asserting, in remarks, that, in fact July, 2011 will just mark the "beginning" of a US assessment of how and when to initiate withdrawal of troops. In his speech, Obama said that the US training of Afghan forces would "allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011..." Yes, Obama said the US would consider "conditions on the ground" in executing the withdrawal, but, if he intended to identify the date, shouldn't he have stood by it? Instead, Gates has been attempting to re-define Obama's words and is, in essence, saying we'll stay longer, if necessary. Who's in charge here, President Obama? Don't you realize this backpedaling makes you look weak?

10) Doesn't it make sense to at least give at least a minute's thought to whether there are any OTHER steps the US might take to reduce the threat of terrorism by Al Qaeda?

Acting in the role of "occupier," in Afghanistan surely helps fan the flames of anger and resistance to United States. The Afghan people, understandably, do not want our troops there. The more the US lingers in other countries - flexing our military muscles - the more the US assumes an image that can stir hatred, resistance, anger and help make enemies out of individuals who might previously be neutral.

I think it'd help to talk to former Al Qaeda members, former Taliban members and people all over the world about what steps they believe would help reduce terrroism.

Why don't we hear more about how leaders of countries are meeting - frequently, for that matter - to discuss strategies, steps and actions - that they might take to address the underlying causes of terrorism? Should the world just give up on that - and go on assuming that a relatively small group of Islamic terrorists should hold the rest of us hostage?

I'm not suggesting we stop trying to identify, or, eliminate those leaders of Al Qaeda we know responsible for the killing of many people. Sometimes, clearly, counter-terrorism, and military action is justified and probably the only effective course. On the other hand, it's time leaders and citizens from across the world try talking about alternative ways to deal with terrorism.

Capuano Needs Super Finish to Catch Coakley

I'm still waiting for Martha Coakley to give me a reason to vote for her in the Dec. 8th Democratic Primary election for the US Senate seat in Massachusetts.

I've still seen nothing. Coakley has run an overly cautious, bland, uninspiring campaign, particularly when you consider the excitement and honor she must feel about the chance to replace the late US Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Coakley is the state attorney general, after having served for years as a district attorney. She's been around the block. She's got to know how to run a more substantive campaign. Instead, it appears that because she's the frontrunner, she's decided to avoid saying anything with an edge or a risky component to it.

I never like it when any candidate chooses this risk-avoidance strategy. Further, I cannot stand it when political pundits and reporters keep pointing out that Coakley's using this approach and saying, openly, that it's smart, or, makes such wise, strategic sense.

So, let me get this straight. Coakley's risk-avoidance is considered fine and dandy at a time when our country is facing all kinds of crises and important decisions in both the domestic and foreign policy arenas. We desparately need to hear as much as possible from these four Democratic candidates about their views, their passions, their experiences -- and, what, specifically, they'd do in Washington to improve things.

So, what have I heard from all four? I've continued to observe that Mike Capuano is the most bold, outspoken, substantive, clear communicator of the candidates. At the end of an exchange with the four of them, you tend to know where Capuano stands the most clearly. Why is that?

It's no coincidence. It's because Capuano speaks his mind and acts naturally. He's a feisty guy who's fueled by anger at at times, but, his anger is directed at the right targets. He's impatient with the status quo, the bureaucracy and the forces that prevent change. Sure, I wish, at times, that he'd squelch some of the angry intonation in his voice and replace it with a tactful, cool tone, but, in the end, I like what Capuano, an experienced, battle-tested US Representative, brings to the table.

What have the other two major candidates offered>

Steve Pagliuca, the Celtics co-owner, keeps displaying his "novice" qualities as a candidate. He looks, acts and sounds like a rookie. His television and radio commercials continue to sound "bush-league." He sounds bland most of the time. I think the most distinctive thing he's done so far is to produce an advertisement critical of Coakley and Capuano. Have I really learned anything about this guy? No. I learned early on that he supported Mitt Romney in an earlier campaign, and, I haven't even heard him explain why the hell he's even in a Democratic primary. Apparently, he thinks all his has to do is fill the airwaves with his fluffy, empty ads that, essentially, say "I'm Steve Pagliuca and I want to win."

Then, there's Alan Khazei, the co-founder of City Year. Khazei has run an unconventional, original campaign in which he often says something unpredictable or more interesting and thoughtful than his opponents. However, he's completely untested and I still feel there's something objectionable about electing a complete newcomer to such an important post by catapulting him immediately to fill the seat of perhaps the greatest US Senator in the history of the country. Why can't Khazei pay some dues? Shouldn't he have run for another office before seeking the US Senate seat?

Capuano says his much more extensive experience means a lot. I agree with him - especially in these fragile, crazy times we live in. I want to know Capuano is down in DC opposing any additional involvement in Afghanistan. I can't imagine any of the other three voicing that opposition as assertively and effectively than Mike Capuano. That's important.

I hope Capuano does well in the debates this week. It's probably his last chance to mount a surge to pass Coakley. The pollsters have said some of Coakley's support is "soft." I guess we'll find out.

I would like to think that the candidate who displays the most good ideas, has strong stands on issues, a clear statement of purpose, and shows the courage of his or her convictios will emerge by the Dec. 8th Primary. I expect Mike Capuano to be that person.

A candidate should be rewarded for speaking with boldness and candor and lose points for deliberately not saying anything risky out of fear of losing votes. Capuano over Coakley.

The Media Keeps Forcing Sarah Palin on Us

"Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story".......or so, the line goes.

Well, that quote applies perfectly to "The Sarah Palin Story." It's a media-generated, media-hyped story that doesn't correspond with realities on the ground.

So, for instance, while you'd expect the release of Palin's new book this week to draw coverage,
the disturbing part is we're being bombarded with images and stories about Palin that suggest far more than a book release is going on. The two underlying premises to the Palin story are:
A) That Palin is one of the most compelling, important figures in American politics today, and, B) That Palin is a serious, potential presidentidal candidate in 2012.

The only problem: There are many facts that severely undercut both these premises, making the coverage of Palin story, really, in the end -----all about attracting higher TV ratings.
Palin has done nothing to prove she is an important figure in American politics -- unless you consider her capacity to attract media coverage some kind of "accomplishment." I certainly don't. I've seen too many people - like Oliver North, or, Ross Perot - generate enormous media coverage (as "potential leaders") that was undeserved. Further, in 2008, the most dramatic way she distinguished herself as a vice presidential candidate was in displaying how unqualified she was to serve as VP or president.

The big thing no network tells you is that when Sarah Palin is covered, she consistently attracts good ratings. She creates a "buzz.' When a former politician or entertainer or anyone draws ratings, he or she is likely to be covered in any way possible as often as possible. That's why we keep seeing Palin's face on TV even when there is NO news or no relative importance to what she's doing. No one on television ever discusses this "market research" that drives their decisions about what to cover.

Of course, one reason Palin draws ratings is that she's good-looking - and, again, this is, unsurprisingly, viewed as more significant than the content of what she's saying. By the way, can anyone identify a few important ways that Palin has contributed ideas to our country's public policy agenda since she emerged on the scene in August, 2008 as McCain's "surprise" VP candidate? I cannot think of any Palin contributions. (I've read that while she was governor, Alaska did a few good things in the area of energy, but, even with that, I don't recall being able to conclude she had offered some original idea or proposal).

In fact, I think on can argue that the only way Palin deserves another shot on the national stage is is she pays a lot of dues first. If she had remained as governor, let's say, and learned a lot about national issues and foreign policy and traveled the world for eight or ten years - to the point that she could speak with far more knowledge and experience, well, then, she'd be in a totally different position, wouldn't she?

The reality is, however, that even though Palin's most salient action since Nov. 2008 was to quit as governor of Alaska before her term ended, she's been in the news or discussed on political talk shows A LOT. Now, with Palin appearing on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" and "Barbara Walters" and others, both network news and cable news/entertainment stations are on a HIGH. It's been all Palin - all the time.

Meanwhile, Palin's history as a vice presidential candidate remains what it was: She ran a very poor campaign and, by objective measures, appeared strikingly unqualified. She repeatedly spoke about issues with a striking lack of facts, background or context. She answered questions in nationally televised interviews in embarrassing fashion.
She repeatedly attacked candidate Barack Obama in a reckless, ugly way, saying things like "He's pal-ling around with terrorists" (referring to Obama's acquaintance with Bill Ayers) She inexusably, repeatedly questioned Obama's patriotism.

Then, after the campaign. Palin complained and whined about how McCain's camp had treated her. We kept hearing about her daughter, Bristol's, baby and her fiancee, Levi Johston. We heard about how "Levi said this" and "Levi said that" Who cares?

In the meantime, the news media kept spouting the same crap: "Will Sarah run in 2012?"
"She's an exciting figure"........What will her impact be?" Palin's resignation as governor had zero impact on the speculation and discussion about her future.

I still just don't get it. Do any producers or executive producers who run political talk shows on television or radio even care about the truth anymore? Does it matter that Palin was a BAD candidate for vice president? What will it take for you to STOP covering Sarah Palin so much?

Palin told Oprah yesterday that a run for president in 2012 was "not on my radar screen." Gee, I wonder it that would slow the coverage down?

Last night, I heard CNN report that in a recent poll, 70 percent of the American people said they didn't think Palin was qualified to be President. Does that matter to the top producers of the infotainment we see on TV every night? No, that's no problem. Who cares if Palin is unqualified and most people believe she's unqualified? Let's keep putting her name and face out there!!!

What I find so disturbing is that some people confuse media coverage of a person with that person's authentic contributions. So, some who keep seeing Palin's image conclude: "Wow, that Palin is really important. She must have certain qualities I don't see if the TV people think she's worth covering so much..."

Things have gotten so blurred in this country: The media creates someone or some story and then comments on the person or story as if they have nothing to do with the media.

Look at the "balloon boy" story. The news media went totally bonkers over the story, then, when questions arose about it being a hoax, the media began covering that without mentioning that their crazy, reckless initial coverage of the balloon is what MADE the story!!! If a news executive had restrained its producers from reporting on the balloon until it was verified that a boy was in the balloon, there would have been NO STORY.

So, last night, when I heard Larry King refer to the "Sarah Palin phenomenon," it made me sick. Who believes there is a "Sarah Palin phenomenon"? Who is continuing to fan the flames of that "phenomenon"?

Only the television executives -and the Larry Kings of the world - who want to keep their ratings high. I've seen no evidence of the "Palin phenomenon" outside in Massachusetts today.

You know what's funny? When I watched Palin on "Oprah," yesterday, she seemed more relaxed, and, a bit more likeable than I think I've seen her in all other appearances. Maybe it was because she was NOT a candidate for high office, but, just conversing, as a citizen.

If only Palin could make a Shermanesque statement saying she'll never - ever - run for President. Maybe that'd slow the coverage a bit?

Who am I kidding? Even that wouldn't stop "The Palin Story," a Media Phenomenon.

Obama Needs to Seize Control of Health Care Reform Effort

Take the wheel, Mr. President. The car is swerving all over the road. Are you going to drive it? or, let it keep swerving and maybe go off the road - as if you're a bystander?

It's not a bad metaphor for how I feel about President Obama's role in trying to close the deal with health care reform. The President has to step up now and be The Leader of health care reform efforts. He has failed to do so for most of this process in 2009, allowing US Senators, Representatives and other parties to knock his proverbial car off the road far too often.

Obama is driving me crazy the way he keeps allowing others to dominate the public debate - even with the stakes getting bigger by the day. He and his top advisors team seem oblivious to the perception that Obama is - still - appearing unclear on what he wants most in the final legislation and that he appears weak. He appears to be getting pushed around by others and far too detached about the actual content of the emerging bill.

The latest bad sign? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Tuesday, Nov. 3rd, suddenly remarked that the Senate might not get a health care bill completed during this calendar year.

What?????

For the past year, all I've read is about the Obama team felt it was essential to get this major legislation done during the President's first year. Remember how President Obama seemed disappointed when the Administration had to accept that the Congress would have to delay action on the bill until after the summer recess - and, instead, wait until the fall?

So, since Tuesday, I've been waiting and hoping that Obama would surprise me and come out with a strong statement correcting Harry Reid and perhaps saying "We WILL take action on this bill by the end of this year." But, NO-OO--OO........Instead, there has been the typical Obama silence. At this moment, (on Thurs, Nov. 5) Obama's silence makes Harry Reid look like the leader on health care and makes Obama seem like a passive, helpless observer.

President Obama and his team cannot sit back and let Reid's statement hang there for another few days. Obama needs to articulate his position on his view of the deadline for a bill OR to explain that he, too, feels legislation may be delayed. (I hope he does not allow delay because, I think it could jeopardize any legislation and hurt his entire presidency)

What baffles me is the Obama team was so skilled in communicating with the public during the 2008 presidential campaign. They didn't allow time to pass before responding to sound bites from their opponents during the primary and the general election. Yet, in the White House, there has been a tremendous drop-off in sensing when the President or a surrogate needs to make a statement or send a signal to convey important messages. With health care reform, in particular, the Obama team has been incredibly passive, allowing months and months to pass without Obama stepping forward and grabbing the bullhorn to declare what he's for and what HAS to be done.

Now, with 2009 winding down, and potential action by the US House on health care legislation approaching within the next few days, will the Obama White House take the initiative and explain what the hell is going on? Where is the President on the public option - bottom-line?
What about the bill's impact on the deficit? Will Obama reassure people that the bill will not amount to runaway government spending without sufficient accountability? I'm not personally worried about that, but, all signs suggest many Americans are - and the White House should wake up and address those concerns.

Obama used to talk about health care reform every day on the 2008 campaign trail. He knows the issue cold. Then, in his early weeks as President - despite the economy being in horrific condition - Obama decided to go forward with a major attempt to reform health care this year. He knew it'd be very risky with the economy as a distraction for all, yet, he did so.

It was puzzling that he chose to let the US Congress play such a major role in developing legislation, but, it has been far more puzzling to observe Obama let month after month go by without asserting himself more in the process. Maybe he knows the bill will be so flawed that he wants a bit of distance, but, it's way too late for that. He's in it up to his neck now.

How Obama handles health care reform in the next several weeks, and, perhaps months, will be an enormous statement about his presidency.

Take the wheel, President Obama. Get out of the passenger seat and start driving.

Why I Support Mike Capuano For the US Senate

I've been so disappointed, and, at times, disgusted by the silence and cowardice of members of the US Congress in recent years.

Congressmen failed to oppose the US invasion of Iraq. Congressmen allowed former President George W. Bush to use 9/11 as a justification to expand powers to the executive branch. In early 2009, even with our economy in freefall, Congressmen failed to unite in collaborative action. Instead of acting like grown-ups and facing adversity by working with the new President to develop the best economic stimulus package, members of both parties were at their worst, bickering as they acted in their own self-interests before, finally, passing a flawed bill.
The US Senate has not been much better. Actually, I think the House and Senate have been disappointing for many years now. Politicians are so timid and predictable. They avoid conflicts with lobbyists and powerful interest groups. They seem to care only about avoiding any big risks that might jeopardize their re-election.

It is incredibly rare to find any US House or Senate members who display any courage, principle or independence.

With all this in mind, I support US Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Somerville) to fill the seat long held by Sen. Ted Kennedy. Capuano, a Democrat from Somerville, must first defeat three challengers in the Democratic primary, schedule for December. The election is in Jan. 2010.

If Capuano has one trait that stands out, it IS his willingness to say what he believes and let the chips fall where they may. Yes, he seems a bit rough around the edges at times. He doesn't speak in perfect, diplomatic sentences......but, I like the idea that I can imagine Capuano asserting himself down in the Capitol Building in Washington DC. He seems unafraid -- unafraid to fight for or against any piece of legislation and unafraid to sail against the wind. Further, I doubt he's intimidated about getting in difficult conversations with his colleagues or anyone else about his positions.

I'm still learning about Capuano. When he first ran back in 1998, I had voted for Susan Tracy rather than Capuano and the other candidates seeking to represent the Eighth Congressional District formerly held by US Rep. Joseph Kennedy. I recall thinking then that Capuano, who had been mayor of Somerville, was more moderate than most of his progressive challengers.

So far, I like what Capuano is saying on the campaign trail. I thought he was far more impressive than his opponents at their first televised debate on Oct. 26th.

He was the candidate who stuck his neck out the most and gave viewers a good glimpse of who he is and what he stands for. He spoke about his position on Iraq and Afghanistan, on immigration reform and the stimulus package with a candor and directness missing in the others. Capuano raised his voice too much at times and seemed a bit too intense, but, on the other hand, he was more himself - and seemed more authentic and, for me, that was a major strength compared to the others, who were more restrained and "safe" in their responses.

I was bothered by the comments after the debate. Several commentators - including WBZ TV's Jon Keller - said that Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley had probably done the best because she said nothing to alter (hurt) her frontrunner status. Give me a break. That's what's wrong with American politics; we have commentators praising a candidate for not taking any risks, essentially. That's exactly what Coakley did. She said nothing, in my view, that was striking or impressive. She gave "boilerplate" safe answers that lacked content and spontaneity. I've seen her do the same on other occasions. She loses significant points from me for being so cautious, and, as a result, dull.

I say that, regretfully, about Coakley because, a few weeks ago, I had the view that if she impressed me, I'd probably want to support her because we so badly need more women in the House and Senate. Since then, however, I've noticed the same bland rhetoric from Coakley every time I see a clip of her or read about an appearance.

As for the two other candidates, I like Alan Khazei, the co-founder of City-Year. He made some thoughtful points at the Oct. 26th debate and seems more of an original, independent thinker than the other two. However, Khazei has not held elective office and I don't feel we should replace Ted Kennedy with a novice at this point. Stephen Pagliuca, the Celtics co-owner, simply seems ill-suited for politics. His non-stop television advertisements are so empty and boring that I find them embarrassing and humorous.

So, for me, it came down to Coakley and Capuano - and so, far, it has not been close. Maybe Coakley will surprise me in the remaining month or so before the Dec. primary, but, I doubt it.

Meanwhile, I keep liking what I read and hear about Capuano. I'm finding he is the scrappy, independent, outspoken Congressman I've heard about over the years. I've been pleased to find out that his record is more liberal than I anticipated.

I am glad that US Reps. Barney Frank and James McGovern, both liberal Democrats, support Capuano. I think very highly of Frank and McGovern, who I once worked with on a campaign. I am glad that Democratic US Reps. John Tierney and Stephen Lynch also support Capuano.

I worry a bit about Capuano because he seems to have a tendency to speak so spontaneously that he might, occasionally, say things that come out the wrong way and cause a problem later. Yet, overall, I feel this is a minor concern compared to my feelings about Capuano having the courage of his convictions

I hope Capuano pulls an upset over Martha Coakley. In 2010, we need boldness, passion and principle a lot more than we need another cautious politician unwilling to ruffle feathers.