Standing Up for Journalism

Where did the respect go? Did it return suddenly with a change of administration?

There is much being made of the White House Press Corps' standing and sitting during the entrance of the President.

Some have noted that they didn't do it for President George W. Bush. Not routinely.

But they did stand up on one occasion. As a sign of respect, they stood for his arrival at his final chat with them in the briefing room. And as has been pointed out by others, members of the national press do and did stand up whenever he (or any other sitting U.S. President) entered the East Room of the White House for a news conference.

If it seems we're getting a little trifling and "ticky" with the respect parceled out, well, that's who we are. And that's what some folks are interested in quantifying. These, of course, are the same people who count stories on various public figures, and then time them. Using a stopwatch.

Is it just that we're more comfortable in "our room" in the White House and that there, we offer less respect? Do we feel less inclined (Or perhaps pushed. I know few reporters who offer visible signs of respect on anything but a "this is policy" or ordered basis.) to do so on what might be considered "our turf?"

Well, no. The fact is that reporters generally don't stand for the President of the United States' arrival in the Press Briefing room out of consideration for photographers who are positioned in the back of the room. We spend our lives trying to do our jobs and be considerate of their needs as well. This is not exception. We try to stay out of the picture.

Except that an exception is being made. Members of the White House Press Corps apparently jumped to their feet in the WH Press Briefing room for the entrance of President Barack Obama during his most recent appearance. In these days of journalisto starpower, were reporters suddenly jumping up and into the frame? I'm still thinking this one over.

I'm not sure I like it. Something's lost. Something that approaches objectivity and the appearance of being nonpartisan. Something I hope we soon find again. And for heavens' sake... SIT DOWN.

A Portugese What DOG??

A Portugese Water Dog. That's the breed of dog that First Lady Michelle Obama says daughters Malia and Sasha will be looking to adopt or "rescue" in April. The announcement was made late Wednesday that the girls, who agreed "Dad can run for President, if we can have a dog."

Never heard of a Portugese Water Dog? You're not alone. And you're looking at a picture of one, coat trimmed in the finest tradition of Portugese Water Dogs everywhere.

The White House pooch has traditionally been a small breed, made for sitting in a lap or by the feet, but definitely out of the way. (Although President Bill Clinton acquired a lovely chocolate labrador named "Buddy," after he uh, earned his time in the doghouse and needed a companion.) So here's what we know about PWDs, gathered from the breed's website:

The existence of the Portuguese Water Dog along the Algarve on the coast of Portugal can be traced back to very remote times. Evidence exists which indicates that in pre-Christian times, the "water dog" was held to be nearly sacred, and severe penalties came to those who killed a "water dog."

And...

The first written description of the Portuguese Water Dog is dated to 1297, and concerns a monk's report of a dying sailor who had been brought out of the sea by a dog which had a "black coat of rough hair, cut to the first rib and with a tuft on the tip of his tail."

Which almost explains the odd grooming job. (Doesn't it remind you of the time when you were a kid and the next door neighbor's wife got a really bad haircut and refused to come outside for two months?)

Fortunately, the Obamas are not shallow, like us. Here's a description of the breed's personality and behavioral attributes:

This seafaring breed was prized by fishermen for a spirited, yet obedient nature, and a robust, medium build that allowed for a full day's work in and out of the water. The Portuguese Water Dog is a swimmer and diver of exceptional ability and stamina, who aided his master at sea by retrieving broken nets, herding schools of fish, and carrying messages between boats and to shore.

That would be just excellent... if Barack Obama was a longshoreman. However, there must be some abidingly good reason that the Obamas are choosing a dog known for its love of and abilities in the water, along with its very unusual grooming procedures.

Mrs. Obama says "the folks that we know who own them have raved about them. So that's where we're leaning." We'll be doggedly searching for more information until the pup's arrival.

Sorta makes you miss ole Socks, the Clinton's cat which passed away quietly one week ago at age 19.

State of the Union

Noted at State of the Union Address: big smiles on everybody standing behind Obama. Clearly Vice President Joe Biden (he of the flashing white smile) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (she of the very matronly attire that still somehow channeled Mao Tse Tung) knew they would be on camera during the entire speech.

But the rest of the audience, while jumping to their feet several times to clap, didn't smile a lot. With one exception.

The Junior Senator from Illinois, Roland Burris. The camera caught him looking as happy as any man ought in being somewhere that he paid the price to be. Figuratively, of course.

If We're Truly "Over It"

"Pigs were seen flying over the United States Capitol today. In other news, Rupert Murdoch apologized."

The New York Post Chairman apologized for the cartoon (below) that compared President Barack Obama to chimp in a recent incident in Connecticut. A violent chimpanzee had attacked a woman and was shot to death by police there.

In a statement in the paper, Murdoch said he wanted to "personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted." He also said the paper would try harder to be more sensitive.

Mr. Murdoch said the cartoon was only intended to "mock a badly written piece of legislation."

First, let me take a moment and retrieve my jaw from the floor. More sensitive? Huh?

Second, let's point out that our new President, like any political leader, is open to criticism. Yes, there is a honeymoon period. But this stuff goes along with the office. It's part of the glamour and glitz. It's part of the daily grind and perks. It's attention. It's just more attention. It's the equivalent of a second grader pulling the pigtail of a girl in front of him. Yes, this time, he pulled too hard, but I don't see the "girl" in this case crying about it.

(And our "second grader"/Rupert Murdoch is looking at share prices of News Corp. stock off 75% of peak, his COO of movies and TV is leaving in June. You gotta think more than mere regret, Rupert is feeling BAD.)

But at a certain point, we have the obligation to get past the fact that "oh my goodness, we elected an African American. It's historic, it's ground-breaking, it's amazing, it's... just another American President." If we're going to say we made history and got past racism, we need to get past it in every way.

We have to put away the "Obama 2008" buttons, the Obama hats and mufflers, and step aside of his race and get on with the business of watching him run the country. And being critical of it. That is, if we truly are past the race issue?

Yes, maybe the cartoon was tasteless, but the animal in question was a chimp, it had died, and that was the news of the day. That poor dead wild animal/household pet was at the forefront of New Yorker's minds. And the economic stimulus was right there along with it.

Wasn't the cartoon more offensive because it depicted our new chosen leader lying dead? And less so because it showed him as another news figure, however poorly, tastelessly chosen?

If we are ever going to past racism in this country, then we have to accept a few missteps along the way.

What Did You Say Is the Name of Your Bank?

I am fantasizing this afternoon about the possibilities. Ahhhhhh, the nearly limitless possibilities.

The Obama administration is going after that big fat Swiss bank, UBS, filing a lawsuit in a Miami federal court forcing the bank to turn over records of wealthy Americans who have been hiding their money over there and in doing so, avoiding paying their share of federal taxes.

Most of us can be quite happy about this because of course, we don't have enough money to make it worthwhile to hide it and attempt to evade taxes. So it's time to smile and let the government chase down these big, fat tax evaders.

The U.S. Attorney General's office, in prosecuting the banker-weasels ("Oh, poor UBS! They lost millions in the mortgage meltdown and now they have this happen?" No, I don't believe anybody is saying that.) expects to recover close to a billion dollars. And that's just the recovered taxes at about $380 Billion; another $400 Billion is penalties. But oh! The loss of face and future business!

The Swiss banking industry has functioned for decades on their reputation for keeping secrets. The UBS case is particularly egregious because apparently, they didn't just look the other way. They actively advised wealthy Americans on how to avoid paying taxes. And they never identified customers. Ever. Absolute secrecy was their promise. They no longer can make that claim. Although they are expected to fight the loss of their neutral status. I mean, seriously, what's next? Having to take a stand against Nazis?

And why did our government let it slide, because apparently, we thought all Americans are honest taxpayers? No, no indeed. "Git 'em!"

An estimated $14.8 Billion in American-owned cash has been stashed in UBS alone. The government is only going to get the names of about 250-300 customers from the bankers. The actual estimate, when the documents were filed forcing the bank to cooperate was that some 20-thousand Americans were hiding money along with other financial gains in the bank. But then a day later, with no explanation, the government more than doubled its estimate.

"At a time when millions of Americans are losing their jobs, their homes, and their health care, it is appalling that more than 52,000 of the wealthiest among us have actively sought to evade their civil and legal duty to pay taxes," the acting assistant attorney general, John DiCicco, said in a statement."

I like that word, "appalling." It's almost adequate, isn't it? One sort of hopes that these 52-thousand Americans are squirming right now, wondering will they be among the 250 unluckiest people in the world... the ones unmasked as being task cheats by the bank that formerly protected them. I like to think of all 52-thousand tossing and turning, at the very least.

My goodness, banking in Switzerland is now almost as dangerous financially as being nominated for high political office in the Obama administration.

Money, Money, Money...

Noted:

President Obama is pouring $75 Billion into helping Americans keep their homes. These are Americans who borrowed too much when the most commonly heard word in real estate circles was "bubble." Sadly, it may not help those who invested in housing as a speculative endeavor to make money. Someone should show them the dictionary definition of speculation. You know, the part where it says "risky."

The city of New York is putting $45 Million into helping those other victims of the Mortgage Meltdown. Those are the ones known as Wall Streeters. Bankers. Investment bankers. Analysts. I know we're all relieved to know they are getting some assistance as their jobs disappear.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced the program which will help retrain the bankers, saying he believes the financial industry will rebound, but "We’re not waiting for that day to come."

The city expects to lose 31,000 jobs in the financial sector this year. $45 Million will pay for a lot of hot dog carts.

GE's CEO, Jeff Immelt has declined his annual bonus. GE's board approved eliminating the $12 Million payment. Mr. Immelt will make do on his $3.3 Millions in regular pay this year. On behalf of all my friends who work (or did until recently) at NBC stations and are currently re-applying for their jobs, I'd like to say something, but I don't write things like that out.

One analyst said Immelt couldn't be blamed for GE's stock price dropping from a 52 week high of $38.52 to under $11 per share. "Immelt's fault? Only if he could see the recession coming." Why couldn't he see it? The rest of us have been howling over it for more than a year.

Meantime, nobody else at NBC stations got to waive anything. They don't get to waive buyouts, layoffs, learning new skills, filling out those job (re)applications with weird new titles or having to work at triple speed to produce news products that will be embarrassingly poor quality, since they are now told "It's not about quality. It's about survival."

I wonder if Mayor Bloomberg has a program for them?

"If I Had Been in Office..."

It must be great being Bill Clinton. He gets up in the morning. Scratches himself... as all men do. Or perhaps not. Perhaps he's not a mere mortal man.

He says he's been advising our new President, Barack Obama on some "nuts and bolts" about the office. He wouldn't get specific on what his advice was and I'm not going to take the obvious shots here. We'll just move on quickly.

But this one I can't resist. Did you see where he said where the recession would not have occurred under his watch? That's okay if you didn't catch it. I've clipped a snippet from a web article about it. Hang on to your hat. This is some mighty wind a-blowin.' Here we go:

Asked his perspective on how the country fell into such economic hard times, Clinton responded in an NBC "Today" show interview by asking rhetorically: "Did any of them seriously believe that if I had been president and my economic team had been in place the last eight years, that this would be taking place."

Nevermind that some believe the economic policies enacted and signed into law by him directly led to the sales of mortgages to untold numbers of now very frustrated and angry Americans who couldn't afford them and stand to lose everything.

Nevermind that in the past, he's admitted that his policies and Congressional Democrats greatly added to those very problems. (It's on this blog, but apparently the 42nd President with the legendary memory has apparently forgotten his own words.)

Nevermind that experts tell us the economy is a cyclical thing. In fact, the theory of economic cycles would call for a Depression approximately every 70 to 80 years. If you do the math, you'll understand why that's got some folks shaking in their shoes.

Nevermind that he thought he could help out in his wife's Presidential campaign. We all saw how that worked out.

Nevermind that Bill Clinton is generally ranked in the mid-section of American Presidents. Yes, he did just move up to the ranking of 15th among our 44 leaders. Last week, he was ranked 23rd (technically, the lower half) but now he's 15. And this makes him King?

It's good to be King. Let's just don't anybody let it slip to the former president that his throne is now in the bleachers. Kings and gods don't usually sit in the cheap seats.

Three Strikes... You're OUT? Or Third Time's A Charm?

I've been a little distracted. But in the back of my mind, I've also been busy. I've been counting the bodies dropping out of the sky. (Don't be morbid. This is not about the plane crash in Buffalo.) It seems like they're piling up.

I'm referring to the number of President Obama's nominees that accept, and then back up once the confirmation process starts to look... icky. Or perhaps more properly sticky. Particularly in one federal agency.

Another nominee for the Commerce Secretary position, the Republican Senator from New Hampshire, Judd Gregg, has now withdrawn his nomination. The Senator cited policy differences.

Well, yeah, there's that. It's hard to be bipartisan when you aren't.

"The Senator will remain... a senator."

But look at this track record. Before Gregg, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson was nominated. He backed when an investigation into "pay to play" practices in his administration (Blago II?) was revealed.

Former U.S. Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) withdrew his name as nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services. You remember him? He was formerly one of the most powerful men in Washington.

But after the people of the Great State of South Dakota voted him out of office, he became forgetful. He forgot that yes, you do look a gift horse in the mouth. If chauffeur-driven limousines are offered as part of the job, you may owe taxes on this "gift." Here's my question: was he doing his own taxes?

Also a nominee for the Obama administration-created created position of budget and government spending reform, Nancy Killefer, withdrew because she had a "tax issue" with the "DC unemployment tax." That's a very generous way to state someone owes back taxes, isn't it?

One of the nominees was in long-term limbo on her confirmation because her husband didn't pay $6400 in taxes on his business. Labor Secretary nominee Hilda Solis' hearing was hastily stalled; rescheduled last week and *poof!* things are now moving forward.

Not to be rude, but um, who wants to be the THIRD person nominated as Commerce Secretary? "Gee, thanks Mr. President! I'm very delighted to be your THIRD pick for this great honor and high office, serving you and the people of the United States. I'll do my best to deserve the honor you've bestowed on me, as your THIRD pick."

Ahhhh, the grandkids will be so proud!

Anyway "batter up," President Obama. We're going to need a Commerce Secretary so that your stimulus plan can get our economy rolling again fast.

Vetting: the process of investigating thoroughly, interviewing carefully, checking and rechecking the tax records and backgrounds of potential candidates for a job in order to eliminate as much as possible the potential for embarrassment in looking like you don't know what you're doing and can't choose honest people to work in your administration.

Taxes? But... It Was a Gift, Right?

This is Tom Daschle, the former Senate Majority Leader from South Dakota. Don't those red-rimmed, round frames make him look a bit eccentric? I always think when someone wears glasses like that, that they must have four more pairs in orange, yellow, green and blue. Who owns just one pair of glasses that are red? That's a fashion statement, not an astigmatism cure, for heavens sake!

Well, anyway, Mr. Daschle has been very busy since leaving public office. So busy, in fact, that it never occurred to him that friendly "gifts" from employers that are worth thousands of dollars are taxable. But that's ok. It almost certainly occurred to the giver.

Senator Tom Daschle, the former "choirboy and flag carrier" under Bill Clinton's administration was voted out of office a couple of years back. But he who was formerly one of the most powerful men in Washington, and thereby the Free World, has risen again from the ashes.

It's just that he's still wearing a little of the dirt.

Now that he's been nominated as the Secretary of Health and Human Services by our new President Barack Obama, his finances are being examined. It turns out that he forgot to pay taxes on the "gift" of a chauffeur and limosine placed at his disposal by the founder of InterMedia.

Mr. Daschle needed it to get to and from all the jobs he was working after he was "laid off" by South Dakota's voters. He did okay for himself. He got a job at a big Washington DC law firm, in spite of not having a law degree. Paid $2.1M over the past two years.

And he worked as a consultant at InterMedia, which is a private equity firm. Took in another $1M a year there.

Of course he also made lots of speeches and picked up another $500K and sat on some boards for another couple hundred thousand bucks. Yep, he stayed busy. So he definitely had need for that limousine and chauffeur. He just forgot to include that perk in the column marked "pay."

He's said he's sorry and he's paying back taxes. Probably penalties, too, if I know the IRS like I think we all know the IRS. It might end there. But let's look at who is listening to his apology: his former fellow members of Senate.

They're pretty understanding guys... and a few gals in those hallowed chambers. You know why? Because they get a chauffeur-driven limousine with the job, too. And they aren't required to pay taxes on theirs either.

It's sort of the human version of being "franked" every morning. "Franking" is the law that allows all of Congress' mail to go out without being stamped. It's "franked" and is delivered by the U.S. Postal Service at no charge to Congress. So every morning, all senators get "franked" by their chauffeurs to the Capitol.

Suh-weet, huh? Yeah, if I were one of those members, I might be pretty understanding, too. After all, Mr. Daschle is a working man. And me? I'm just trying to understand.

By the way, a new survey reported in the Washington Post says 9 out of 10 Americans don't like tax cheats. Not at all.

Loose Lips Sink... the Hindenberg?

I'm not a big fan of voodoo. I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, or Batman. I have seen "The Secret" and think it's a great way to feel better about life, although I wouldn't want to use it in place of cancer treatments. (I don't really think that cartoon is funny, either, but.. oh well.)

But when I saw a headline in the Washington Post saying "Obama Calls Slump a Disaster" immediately under another story about how the two year long recession is deepening, causing the quickest economic contraction in 25 years, I thought "Thanks Big Guy."

There seems to be a lot of argument about the depth and severity of the recession. I read an article this morning that credibly made the case that this recession is NOT as severe as the one in 1980. The recession of 1980 featured unemployment in the low teens and inflation about the same. That's a tough time.

And as I listened to the afternoon White House briefing, I heard a reporter ask what I wanted to know, "Does the President think calling this slump a disaster and all his talking about how bad it is will be helpful?" (Thanks very much, Major Garrett of FoxNews.)

Since the recession is being worsened by panicked consumers who are cutting their spending and expenses, it doesn't help to jump up and down on the heap. The media is accused of this all the time, but the reality is, we generally just report the numbers.

It is sort of amusing how different some people's tone is these days. Promises before the election; grave-faced serious talk after the election. It would have been nice if voters had spotted that during the campaigns, but the wakeup call needs to end.

This reminds me of what an old gentlemen I knew of said about marriage: "Date with your eyes wide open. Be married with your eyes half-shut."

Perhaps we need a dose ourselves with some of that "half-shut" as we try to work ourselves through this recession.

Approval Ratings?

Let's all take a deep breath. Inhale. Exhale. Inhale. Exhale.

And now let's note that Gallup Pollsters have taken our temperature nationally and after three business days in office, two-thirds of the American people approve the job that Mr. Obama is doing.

That's right. THREE DAYS.

This reminds me of someone who was newly divorced and um, perhaps a little needy told me that his best friend had gotten married one month after his divorce "and they're still really happy and totally in love."

And how long have they been married, I asked?

"A month!" he said, perhaps a little too breathlessly.

I think I giggled at that point. (Do you see the problem my male friends have with me?) A whole entire month? Was that a full 31 days? A shortened 30 day month? Or are we maybe talking about February?

Relax. He's got four years. Keep breathing.

Obama: The Leader for Change

He's stopped prosecuting accused terrorists. He closed Guantanamo Bay. He's keeping his Blackberry. He wants Capitol Hill democrats to move on the bailout plan. He's all about change.

I mean, hey, he campaigned on the idea that he would change things, right? And he's started already. Except look who he's got working for him.

Former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke has now been appointed as Obama's envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to deal with the resurgence there of al-Qaeda and the radical Taliban movement. Holbrooke is a former Clinton administration appointee, well known in diplomatic circles. (Also well known in journalism circles for marrying one of Peter Jennings wronged ex-wives.)

And over at the Justice Department, Eric Holder, may become the first black Attorney General. He also was there before, during the Clinton Presidency.

Of course, we all know who the Secretary of State is; someone who has to have her husband clean up his business dealings so they don't become an embarrassing conflict of interest as former Senator Mrs. Hillary Clinton represents the United States on various diplomatic stages around the world.

Also on the job again, the former President's personal secretary, Betty Currie. She's now answering phones for John Podesta, a former Clinton administration bigwig, who is heading the Obama transition team. (Another member of the team? Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich... Clinton-era.)

And back at the helm, steering the new President through these difficult legally challenging times, Greg Craig, who was Clinton's personal attorney during those very trying times that ahhhh, lots of people don't like to talk about.

So... he's got a lot of help that already have their standing lunch orders in at the White House cafeteria, right?

Does that seem odd to anyone else that someone who campaigned on change apparently didn't mean "change" as much as he may have meant "change back?"

Hmmm. Maybe it's just me.

The New Guy

I went. Do you really need pictures of me shivering to prove it? I think not.

I was impressed. By the size of the crowd. The mood of the crowd. The generosity and happiness that seemed to be free-floating through the crowd. It was a wonderful day.

I thought Mrs. Obama looked amazingly elegant and beautiful in her gold ensemble. I'm not sure how she managed to stand there, even under heat lamps, holding the Lincoln Bible for him to take the oath of office, without visibly shaking in the January cold, but... she did.

I thought President Obama's speech was incredibly good. Where other past presidents have issued a "wake up call" to Americans, I thought Mr. Obama issued more of a "grow up" call. I liked the way he asked us to start making the hard decisions; to work hard, to start repairing our image abroad and to generally take responsibility for ourselves and our lives.

And I liked being there for all of it.

I was a bit disappointed that people booed the outgoing President. Doesn't his office still deserve our respect, even though so many of us didn't like him? And on big national occasions like that, when we feel so good about our new President and the shining future that he holds the door to, is it so very neccessary to tell his predecessor and the rest of the world that is watching that we didn't like President Bush? He's already leaving with the worst approval rating in decades... if not ever.

I had to stop myself from taking a school marm tone when the crowd was even louder in disapproving Vice President Cheney. I wanted to shout, "Folks, you're booing a man in a wheelchair," but...

It was that crowd's day, I supposed. And in standing on the Washington Mall in that cold January wind that was blowing, I really got the feeling that someone else was about to teach us some manners. Someone else is taking over the lessons in etiquette and "raising the children."

Personally, if the Inauguration and its events were any indication, I look forward to watching Him and Her press ahead... getting the country's groove back on.

Promises, Promises...

A friend invited me to go to the Inaugural Parade with her and her son today. Well, that's not really accurate. She asked what I was doing and then said that she was taking her son and going to try to get as close to the parade route as possible.

So... unless she's a BIG MEANIE, I think I'm invited.

Going to an Inauguration with her and her kid is, to be honest, a lot more fun than going with say... a 6'2" burly guy wearing a $50K camera on his shoulder. Trust me. I know this.

Anyway, I'm now officially interested in going. (I'm jaded. Ok. I admit it. Are you happy now?)

And here forthwith are.... (drumroll, please?)

MR. OBAMA'S TOP TEN CAMPAIGN PROMISES (as noted by USAToday)

1. Ensure all children have health insurance coverage. 73% of us think this is very important. Somewhat fewer of us (62%) believe he can actually do this.

2. Reduce health care costs for the typical American family by up to $2,500 per year. This is where it begins to amuse. 70% say this is a biggie. 56% think he can pull it off. At least fewer of us need a reality check on that one.

3. Double the production of alternative energy. That same 70% say "very important. 59% say "Uh, yeah, the dude can do it." Hmmmm, I don't know if he can, but that ought to be doable. If he did, could that industry be a rocket for the rest of the economy to ride?

4. Enact a spending program to strengthen the nation's infrastructure of bridges, roads and schools. 60% of us think this is a big deal. 80% of us think this is doable. And heck, we might even benefit as federal dollars get infused into local economies.

5. Cut federal income taxes for 95 percent of working families. 57% said this was very important. 53% say this is possible. (Read the previous four points and you'll see why this isn't the most likely of prospects.)

6. Withdraw most U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months. 51% say "very important." 54% say probably he can. What percent say the troops will be shipped from Iraq to Afghanistan?

7. Increase U.S. military strength in Afghanistan by at least two brigades. (What did I just say??) Very important, say 43 percent of Americans. 68% say the incoming President can "achieve" this. (Remind me why he promised this? What was there a goal beyond just musical military chairs?)

8. Lift restrictions on government funding of embryonic stem-cell research. 42% say this is vital. 61% say the new President will be able to do this... and likely, he'll be able to get a Democratic Congress to actually fund the less-restricted research.

9. Close the U.S. prison for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo. 32% of us believe this is very important. 59% of us think he can do it. (Does the phrase "same circus, different tent" mean anything?)

10. Make it easier for labor unions to organize. 28% of us say this is very important. 59% of us say Mr. Obama can do this, once in office. I'm really unclear on how he'll do this last one. Offer tent meetings on the edge of town? Secret clubhouses in Iowa? Send in Sally Fields?

I post these because I think it'll be good to have them all in one place. Sort of benchmark them. Here they are... all compiled and ranked.

Now I can go to the Obama-Rama (Do they have tea cozy's with him and the girls on them? I might like that. Or maybe some demi-tasse cups that I can serve pot d' creme in some dark, dreary day?) and not worry myself further. We'll return and tally his count in a few months.

BTW, AOL posted those numbers and added an online poll. Extremely unscientific, but I noticed that 29% of those responding expect Barack Obama will make a poor president. Another 27% think he'll be fair. 24% expect he'll be excellent and 20% think he'll be only good. Reality has been checked.

Will It Be Different Once HE Walks thru the Door?

They are putting up the risers, getting the souveneir stands ready, and starting to haul in the porta-johns in Washington. The Nation's Capital is preparing for that magical mystery event called an Inauguration. The New Guy is a-comin' and the love is a-flowin.'

In short, it's getting a little deep in some places.

Me? I'm theorizing on what will happen on January 21... The Day after The Inauguration of The Anointed One. Man, I'm hoping it's everything they hype. Oh, um, HOPE. I meant hope.

Yeah, I heard that nomination acceptance speech in which he promised to help everybody from college students to immigrants to teachers to the indigent and homeless. "If you have health insurance, I'll get it for you cheaper. And if you don't have insurance, I'll get you Congress' insurance." (Paraphrasing... but still very close.) You don't hear big promises like that anymore, but like the rest of America, I'm still hoping for something here. I am guessing his Inaugural Speech is going to be a lot more subdued.

I remember when George H. W. Bush was leaving office after one term, the economy was in a downturn and the media had scrawled the word "recession" from one end of the country to another.

We like to do that from time to time. It gives us something to talk about. I'm just sayin'...

So then Mr. William Jefferson Clinton steps into office and almost within a few days, the economy started to turn around. It was stunning. I think back to all the conversations I've had with Washington DC cabbies who told me "I wish we could keep Clinton in office; he turned the economy around!" If only that were true.

Because of course these days, we've all learned that the economy is cyclical in nature and that what one President sets up, another reaps. Particularly painfully true in the MORTGAGE CRISIS, MR. CLINTON. Sigh.

But let's continue. It does seem like we in the media enjoy a friendly relationship with Mr. Obama. He was clearly the one for The People, too. While I don't think that the recession is being over-reported or made worse by our writing and reporting, I'll be wondrously amused if I see the economy take sudden bounds back into healthy territory immediately after the upcoming inauguration. Don't get me wrong; I'll be thrilled, too, if it is legitimate. I'll be so very, very thrilled.

But since I saw a dearth of good news for Bush (41) while seeking his second term... and I see the same playing out for Bush (43) as he leaves office, I do pause every so often in wonderment. (Please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying he's brilliant. But seriously... when was he so influential and gifted that he did all this himself? Let's remember congressional oversight of the banking and mortgage industry is NOT under the Executive Branch.) And consider the possibilities: what will happen on January 21?

It's a splendid thought, isn't it? If all the hope for change that He promised really came about? If all the things He promised to buy for us were magically in place that day, like so many presents waiting to be unwrapped. And we could forget about that other nagging, ugly thought... forget about our recession?

So the question I really want answered and we'll know very soon, can a media anointing mean things will finally turn around... is it really just because we say so? Or does the reporting simply start to reflect the hope that we feel?

The truth is that objectivity really is in the eye of the beholder. As much as we like to argue otherwise, the idea that any of us are objective is sadly naive. We're not. (And deep inside, we know it. Otherwise, what would we talk about at all those big dinners and such?)

As for the other question… the one of chicken or eggs... does the economy go south everytime a Bush sets foot in the Oval? Does a Bush walking into the West Wing ruin the geometry for all?

If I were Jeb, I certainly wouldn't let my Dad play in my hat closet. He might inadvertently throw one of those tokes in the ring. Personally, I think we need to get past this current generation without needing to see if a Bush can do it a third time.

"What We Must Hope for, is Hope Itself!"

Well, I've paraphrased. And badly. But I think hope is going to be that important this year.

In just a few short weeks, we shall have a new president; a new leader for this country and the most powerful man in the Free World. And since it has been well-noted that he comes to the job a mite bit under-prepared but proclaiming himself the Leader for Change, I would like to note that what he does do well is something we haven't seen in awhile.

He's an awfully good orator. Yikes! The man won election in good portion because of his speaking skills. Remember the last time we had a great public speaker who gave us all hope in the house? Yes, Bill Clinton was good at that, but that's not who I'm thinking of. I'm thinking of Ronald Reagan, who had some level of executive leadership experience having run the "Fifth Largest Economy in the World" of California.

(And please, don't email me to say that GWB is a good orator because I will have uncontrollable giggle fits for days. The 43rd President spent most of his five six months as a President slumping to the side at podiums from coast to coast. Just once, I wanted one of his handlers to approach him during a speech and whisper in to his ear, "Sir, the American people are watching. Show them the respect they deserve by standing up straight, please?)

Ronald Reagan was also the Great Communicator. His talent as an actor was legendarily mediocre, and he wisely moved into public speaking and politics as soon as his good looks began to wane in Hollywood. (Wow, these days, that would have put him running for office at age 23, eh?) He spoke eloquently, to the people, with excellent command of the language but without pretense of high-mindedness. He was down to earth but incredibly compelling.

And he made us all feel better about our country and ourselves, as Americans. He knew that we wanted to feel good about being a Super Power and that to have a hero, we needed a villain. It was so gratifying when that Villain ran out of money and with all the flourish of a vaudeville curtain torn aside, the Berlin Wall came down. Fortunately, he knew he wasn't the be-all, end-all intellectually, so he hired good help, too, to carry out his ideals and they became our ideals. He provided our best image of ourselves.

So now we have Barack Obama, elected because he makes us feel good and we all want to join in the change and be part of the future of racial equality in this country. (Nevermind that it doesn't exist. There's a saying in Hollywood: "Fake it 'til you make it.") President-elect Obama is everything we like in a President in these United States.

He's tall, slender, youthful and good looking with a strong, well-educated woman by his side and two beautiful daughters to raise in the White House. And one heckuva public speaker.

The man brings together all the best traditions of public speaking, from Martin Luther King's use of anaphora (repeated phrases, like "I have a dream...") to his dynamic vocal delivery, use of pauses and pacing, and even his exceedingly apparent personal confidence. He exudes the hope that we are looking for.

And let us hope that he can deliver on it. Otherwise, 2009 may be very dark indeed.

Where Is that Fat Lady?

Did I miss something? Did I fall asleep and wake up in December? Because I don't remember an election where the Big Faces on tv seemed more inclined to suggest that "it's all over."

I think this is somewhat amusing because I remember all the times that the networks have banded together to steadfastly promise not to call the results too early in the evening, before the states where polls closed last (ie Pacific Coastal States) had finished their voting.

And I remember eight years ago when were were all stuck covering "The Election" for an interminable two months. I think that was possibly the worst.

But here we are. It's early October. And I'm getting the impression that some folks are inclined to say it's over.

I got a note over the weekend from a friend on Capitol Hill. He said he was depressed because the Ohio Atty. General was "allowing early voting using same day registration with no id requirements and no polling place observers permitted, at least not Republican observers. The Dems are literally picking vagrants off the streets and running them through the polling places."

I'm a little skeptical of that report, but it is interesting.

And then there are the polls showing McCain to be sinking. It's hard not to think the worst, particularly when Mr. McCain threw in the towel in Michigan, signalling to anyone who is watching that clearly, blood is in the water.

I hate to see this ending when it seemed to be engaging the minds of so many. Plus, I wonder who is going to buy all those ad hours if the political campaigns go away? Maybe those media folk ought to learn which side their bread is buttered on, and button it up with the dire predictions for a few more weeks?

Journalists Behaving Badly...

I use the term "journalists" very loosely here. This is not a pretty blog post for my profession. In fact, I think it speaks to why media credibility, influence, and ratings are diminishing. This is so disappointing that it is disheartening. I love my profession and this hurts us all. I don't like posting about extremely negative, shameful things, but here it is again and I can't ignore it.

The national politics and issue magazine hired a photographer to shoot pictures of John McCain for a cover story about the Republican Presidential candidate. This is what they chose.


It's on their cover, coming soon to a newsstand near you. Or you can check out the article on their website at http://www.theatlantic.com/. Haven't read the article myself so far. I'm still too appalled. Why?

Because their photographer Jill Greenberg has admitted, and in fact more appropriately bragged about setting up McCain's shoot to deliberately make him look hideous. Frightening. Distractingly, detractingly menacing and ugly.

Those of us who are in "the business" know too well that lighting can make or un-do us. I watch my lighting, angles, and photographer like a hawk. (Um, which no, they don't always appreciate. But it's not their face and name on the story, now is it?) A low angle adds weight; bad lighting adds years. And Adobe Photoshop can add anything else a photographer wishes. She wielded two out of three in this picture:

The Atlantic wisely chose to skip that picture along with any others it felt made the candidate look unduly off. But then the photographer (who had the audacity to post the job on her portfolio website: http://www.thenemanipulator.com/. Interesting choice of website name, isn't it?) switched things up. She got really childish, really ugly, extremely unprofessional, and downright nasty with her software.

She also turned crude. If you check out some of the photos on this website, http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/bad_americans/the_atlantic_mo.php you will see what I mean. They are, as the site above points out, political pornography.

I think we all see what this was on the surface, but let's see it at its purest: a lack of faith in the American system and voters. Nobody has to take these shots. Americans who are interested in the electoral process tuned in during those political conventions. We all heard the speeches made by these two candidates. We will all make our own decisions.

Nobody needs to throw themselves on the political fire in this country to show Americans who their candidates are. What this says to me is that a rather silly woman chose an underhanded and devious way to demonstrate her belief that her candidate can't win on his own merits. She believed that her help was needed by Barack Obama to win against his opponent.

The Atlantic has apologized to its readers on its website. And the publisher says he is drafting a letter of apology to the McCain campaign. (Who apparently need to hire a more savvy media handler who goes everywhere with the candidate. Who does photoshoots with a strobe light?)

But its a sad day when someone for my profession when purports to be among us, but clearly has chosen to move to a sideline... also known as the gutter.

He Said that Who Said What about Which?

And so in this year of "historic" and "trail blazing" elections and candidates, three out of four national candidates are male and yet somehow the discussion is all about... lipstick.

""You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig," said the Democratic Candidate of Change, Barack Obama. He was talking about his opponent John McCain who says he's a candidate of change, too.

Obama was ticking off a list of ideas that McCain says he wants to change, too, ie -- economic policy, taxes, education, foreign policy, campaign tactics. Obama says his opponent is not about change. He says John McCain is all about more of the same.

That's when he made his lipstick comment, with the crowd erupting into shrieks, whoops and cheers.

Why is this such a big deal? Because during her speech at the GOP convention, newly announced Vice Presidential Candidate, Sarah Palin told an off the cuff joke:

"Do you know the difference between a pitbull and a soccer mom? Lipstick." She got roars of approval from the audience.

So was Obama's comment a reference to Governor Palin? Was Barack Obama taking a shot at the new candidate, the first Republican woman to get on the ticket? Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not going to tell you that I read minds or know the heart and soul of any Presidential candidate. (And it's a relief not to have that power! )

Barack Obama excused his reference saying that in the past, John McCain attacked Hillary Clinton using a line about lipstick on pigs.

So here's my question: if Barack Obama is all about change, why is he recycling John McCain's old lines?

Don't get me started on the pregnant 17 year old. We might be here all day.

"Forest, Meet Trees. Trees, this Is Forest."

I like to read what they're saying about the United States around the world sometimes. I like to think it gives me a little perspective. At the times when we've been attacked as a country and people around the world say and do things that let us know they despise us, I think back to my personal travels and sorta nod. But on smaller issues, internet newspaper sites can provide such an interesting dose of reality.

For instance, Barack Obama is in Europe today. During this trip abroad, he's met with Israeli leaders. He's met with the Palestinians. He's met with both the current and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He's explaining why he didn't go to meet with those poor, injured American troops in Germany. But he's definitely made his bones on this trip. And clearly, he's well-received and if elected would suffer from no un-likability factor.

But aren't we getting a little ahead of ourselves? Our chariot may be galloping ahead of a large pack of horses. The papers in London seem to think so. Here's their analysis:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2461320/Analysis-US-media-treats-Barack-Obama-as-president-elect-but-race-still-close.html

I'm not going to go off on this any further. It's pretty well laid-out in the Daily Telegraph. You can read it for yourself.

And sometimes, I think it's nice to stand back and admire both the forest and the trees. A little perspective can be a helpful thing.