On Sunday night, November 16, 2008, twelve days after an historic Presidential Election, Americans watched the couple who represents the culmination of their efforts. Barack and Michelle Obama appeared on 60 Minutes. Journalist Steve Kroft sat with the President-elect and his partner and pondered all that had occurred and would possibly be. Television screens flickered. People felt elated, exhausted, energized, or just excited. Few knew what would come. However, most agreed, after the 2008 Presidential Election, everything was different.
Barack Obama was not yet in the Oval Office. The Illinois Senator’s promises of transformative policies are still not in place. The transition team had begun its work. Yet, until the President-Elect takes office nothing official can be done to bring about the pledge of change. Only hope reigned eternal. Nonetheless, the world had turned on its axis. All were altered by what had occurred the night before. The evidence was perhaps more obvious in the United States.
A friend, who lives in Chicago, Barack Obama’s hometown, said, as he drove to work on Wednesday morning, November 5, he could not help but notice sanitation workers wore smiles. Other commuters were more at ease. Persons in cars were happy to allow pedestrians the right of way. People on the road did not pass each other in haste. Genuinely polite postures were adopted on city streets.
The mad scramble, the race to nowhere, the need to rush was replaced by a pleasant amble. People on the streets were authentically more polite. It seemed to my champion in the Midwest, just as it did to me in the South East, America had done the unexpected, the unprecedented, the unpredictable, and for the most part, people were quite pleased with them selves and with the nation as a whole.
Some were shocked to discover a Black man could rise to power, and become President of the United States. Others were in awe that the man, Barack Obama had not been scared off. So many political opponents tried to intimidate him. Any excuse was used to slam and damn the man some thought was not Presidential material. Barack Obama was too thin, too fat, he did not associate with the “right” people; nor did he reside in a house that befitted his station.
Scandals were floated and filtered through the airwaves; the Illinois Senator was tied to the Chicago machine. The constitutional lawyer was called a Socialist, and a Communist. Those who misread reports in prominent periodicals avowed; the then Presidential hopeful palled around with American terrorists.
As if all that was not enough, the candidate’s complexion was too dark in color. Yet, for several, Barack Obama was not Black enough. Threats, from the first, were heard on the campaign trail. White supremacists, and those who merely believe themselves superior to African-Americans, attempted to put Senator Obama in what they thought to be, his place. Racism was perhaps the most recognized reason for a possible retreat. However, it was the one few wished to publicly broach. Prejudice was perchance the only issue posed that could not be denied.
All the rumors were proved wrong. Rants were rarely reasonable. Rage rolled off Barack’s back. Anger expressed against the person, Barack Obama was thought without cause. The individual who asked to be President did not personally revile his rivals. He did not antagonize his adversaries. Forever calm, Presidential aspirant Obama held his own. He captivated a country ready for change.
The person who emerged, Barack Obama, and the average people who endorsed him, helped build an American community so powerful, so full of pride, practical, and persuasive, they were able to elect a President.
That action was the change that transformed America. A supposed “celebrity” did not move millions to go to the polls. Eloquent speeches did not cause the country to suspend disbelief. Citizens of this country did not wait in long lines to cast a ballot for a boy wonder. Eighty-two year old men and women who had never voted in their lives did not register merely because they saw a man they could believe in. Hope did not enter hallowed halls and bring people to their knees.
What occurred on November 4, 2008 was the American dream. Apathy virtually ended. The people took back their power. Since Election Day 2008, average Americans anticipate that the man they appointed President would do as they desire. Common folks began to believe they were as the Constitution of the United States declares, equal. There was a genuine hope; the government was truly of, by, and for the people.
City laborers did not glow with glee as they reflected upon Barack Obama in the White House. Bus, train, plane, and subway riders did not rejoice merely because the son of a Kenyan scholar, and a Kansas student would take the oath of office. Nor did millions dance with delight as they pondered the other prideful parent, Michelle Obama, at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. A country did not celebrate Grandmother Robinson’s possible move to Washington District of Columbia. Few found intense pleasure in the notion that the daughters, Sasha and Malia, and a new dog would romp around the Rose Garden.
Billions beamed throughout the globe for finally, everyday folks, at least in America, achieved the impossible. Common people created enthusiastic communities that together showed they cared. Masses knocked on millions of doors. More made telephone calls. All asked friends and family to have faith that change could come if we, the people, organized and acted together as one.
The hope was that if the public believed in them selves, as the Presidential aspirant, Barack Obama requested, common folk would overcome all obstacles. On November 4, 2008, many realized they had reached heights not attainable in year’s prior.
While Barack and Michelle Obama spoke of how the election had altered their lives, the audience trusted, in truth, what was transformed was not evident on the television screen. Change came through challenging work. Citizens accomplished more than they had. Harden hearts were replaced with a reason to believe again. On Election Day, the people and the nation were transformed.
On that special Sunday, more than a week after an extraordinary election, the people’s image of self, and others, were seen in the smiles donned by Broadcaster Steve Kroft, Barack and Michelle Obama, by street sweepers, bus drivers, school teachers, stylists, police persons, fire fighters, doctors, lawyers, nurses, and so many more Americans. Each grinned as they said to themselves, “Yes we can!”
Presidential aspirant Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks of her ample experience. The Senator from New York reminds us in advertisements and advisements that she, the former First Lady is abundantly qualified to serve as President of the world’s superpower, the United States of America. For decades, Clinton gave to her country and the community. She would like to continue to work for the people; perhaps, in a more profound manner. As Hillary Clinton affirmed of herself, “I have crossed the Commander-In-Chief threshold.” However, some question her qualifications.
We agree; Senator Clinton has already walked within the private quarters of the White House. She was privileged enough to inhabit the residence. She, and her spouse, were selected by the people, not once, but twice to represent this nation. In her position as First Lady, the Presidential hopeful gained much wisdom. As Senator, she expanded her knowledge.
Hillary and husband Bill Clinton are deeply connected. The pair has been through trying times. Yet, repeatedly, they triumph. Nearly a score ago, William Jefferson Clinton coined the term “comeback kid” about him. From his first Presidential bid to has last, and then again after he left office, the boy from Hope, Arkansas never lost his. This extraordinary man married a woman who mirrored his amazing ability, Hillary Rodham. On March 4, 2008, Presidential hopeful, the wondrous Hillary Clinton did as her husband had done well over a decade ago. She too can now be called the quintessential candidate who will not be kept down. Despite a mass of primary and caucus wins, Barack Obama, learned as many before him had, the experienced candidate, Hillary Clinton will carry on with greater vigor until she realized substantial victories.
As near newlyweds, Bill and Hillary governed in Arkansas. Against all probability, the fresh young couple, from a small Southern state, entered the national scene. Together, they engaged in many difficult and persistent disputes with the privileged political notables. Hillary argued against all claims cast against the couple. She spoke of a vast “Right-Winged Conspiracy.” Ultimately, the Clintons prevailed and came to occupy the Oval Office.
They endured when others lost faith. Bill’s hometown, Hope, provided him with extraordinary will. Apparently, Hillary had the same ability to dream and create the impossible. The two are practiced. They have been beaten down, and just as the Phoenix, they rise from the ashes.
Many Americans recall when the Governor of Arkansas and his bride first appeared on the national scene. people recognized Hillary was not and would not be the woman behind the man; the two were as one. The First Lady of the Natural State was as articulate, erudite, experienced, and eloquent, just as her Rhodes Scholar husband Bill was and is. The couple met in college. Each attended and graduated form Yale Law School. Each was and is a professional in his or her own right. In 1991, the thought was elect one and the nation would have two esteemed and eligible individuals working in the White House for “us,” the citizens of the United States.
Thus, Americans were convinced. The Clinton’s, as they are often called, moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Bill Clinton and Hillary shared a bed. They exchanged secrets. The two lawyers understood the complexity of their given roles. They were familiar with the particulars in each other’s lives. Couples communicate. Americans saw evidence of what the Clintons could do. The deficit was reduced. A surplus produced. The people prospered. Many would say, ‘life was good under the Clinton’s.’
Hence, there is reason to believe as Louis Murray of Barry, Vermont declared, on a cold day in March 2008, as he emerge from the polls. Mister Murray told a National Public Radio reporter, “She is truthful, truthful.” We can only wonder of the rest of his statement, “[T]his Obama, I don’t know. I don’t know. I just don’t trust him. I am not prejudiced or anything. I just don’t trust him.”
Perhaps Louis Murray mirrors his mentor. Hillary Clinton, only days before the March primary vote expressed her reticence. She was questioned about her faith in Barack Obama, or at least she cast doubt on his. In a 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft, Senator Clinton was asked of a concern expressed by many constituents. ‘Is Barack Obama a Christian?’
“Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that,” she replied.
“You said you’d take Senator Obama at his word that he’s not…a Muslim. You don’t believe that he’s…,” Kroft said.
“No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know,” she said.
“It’s just scurrilous…?” Kroft inquired.
“Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors, that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time,” Clinton said.
This terse and tentative dismissive of the rumors that Barack Obama may be Muslim, hence a threat to the Jewish population, or pro-Israel policy, is but one of many stealthy, subliminal actions in an ample arsenal of Clinton agendas. The experienced campaigner and her cohorts have been up to much mischief. However, they deny, or refuse to comment, on claims and confirmations.
The comment seemed like a casual aside. Ann Lewis, a senior adviser to Hillary Clinton, was touting the New York senator’s strong support for Israel during a conference call in January with leaders of major American Jewish organizations. During the call, Lewis energetically contrasted Clinton’s pro-Israel credentials with those of Barack Obama. To make her point, she said that Obama’s “chief foreign-policy adviser” is Zbigniew Brzezinski, says one participant who would talk about the call only if he were not identified.
Brzezinski-the former national-security adviser to Jimmy Carter-is not Obama’s “chief foreign-policy adviser.” That is the job of a triumvirate who once worked for Bill Clinton: Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Greg Craig. But Brzezinski, who tells Newsweek he has advised Obama “only on occasion,” has a reputation that is close to toxic in the American Jewish community. “When Brzezinski’s name appears on an advisory list, that’s a red flag right away,” says an influential American Jewish leader who did not want to sour relations with the Obama campaign. Many American Jews mistrust Brzezinski because he endorsed a 2006 article, later a book, called “The Israel Lobby,” which blames many U.S. foreign-policy problems on Washington’s ties to Israel.
Lewis’s aside is not an isolated incident. (She did not respond to a request for comment.) As the race between Clinton and Obama has sharpened in recent months, other Clinton campaign operatives have sent around negative material about Obama’s relations with Israel, according to e-mails obtained by Newsweek. In addition to Brzezinski, the e-mails attack Obama advisers such as Rob Malley, a former Clinton negotiator at the 2000 Camp David talks who has since written articles sympathetic to the Palestinian point of view, and they raise questions about Obama’s relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor at Obama’s Trinity Church in Chicago. Wright has criticized Israel, and Trumpet, a publication run by his daughter, gave an award for “greatness” to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who once called Judaism a “bloodsucking religion.” (Obama disagreed with bestowing the award.)
Yet, regardless of Barack Obama’s denouncement, and rejection of talk or actions against Israel, irrespective of his support from and for the Jewish people, the Clinton Camp rages on. Repeated assaults, similar to those the Clinton’s “experienced” when they first entered the political fray are not being used against the man they consider the enemy, presumed Presidential nominee, Barack Obama.
In an e-mail sent Feb. 4-a day before Super Tuesday-Clinton finance official Annie Totah passed along a critical essay by Ed Lasky, a conservative blogger whose own anti-Obama e-mails have circulated in the U.S. Jewish community. Totah wrote: “Please read the attached important and very disturbing article on Barack Obama. Please vote wisely in the Primaries.” (She didn’t respond to a request for comment.)
While no definitive evidence exists, there seems to be a direct correlation. A region is flooded with electronic mails that claim the devout Christian Barack Obama is Muslim, just before a primary or caucus in that given territory takes place. Search after search proves the gossip is false. Barack Obama is not and was not Muslim; nor was he educated in a radical Muslim school known as a “madrassa.” Yet, a fearful public reacts to rumors with venom. Possibly, probably, an experienced and educated Clinton has read the research.
Fueled with more fire, and fiercely familiar with what it takes to command a lead a country, Hillary will do what she feels she must to triumph. As the former First Lady asserted, for Hillary Clinton, this campaign “is personal.” Hence, her campaign avowed, they would ‘throw the “kitchen sink” at Barack Obama. The Obama momentum, 11 straight wins, would be derailed. The New York Senator would to be regain her title. After all, she, and her husband, are the Comeback Clinton’s.
The infinitely experienced and esteemed Hillary Clinton is able to evaluate a situation and a person perfectly. She has done so for thirty-five years. When Senator Clinton states Barack Obama is not prepared to be Commander-In-Chief, those who trust her as Louis Murray does, look and listen. Most forget; for years, Senator Clinton prepared for her coronation and cultivated military connections.
Hillary Clinton brings home the dollars for New York’s defense contractors
by Kristen Lombardi
April 26th, 2005 12:00 AM
When someone like Newt Gingrich commends a Democrat’s service on the Senate Armed Services Committee, you know, you’re looking at a serious hawk. That hawk is Hillary Clinton, junior senator from blue-state New York and possible presidential candidate in 2008.
Gingrich, with an eye on his White House bid, told a group of newspaper editors last month that she’d make a formidable opponent. “Senator Clinton is very competent, very professional, very intelligently moving toward the center, very shrewdly and effectively serving on the Armed Services Committee,” the GOP hard-liner said. Gringrich should know: He sits with her on a star-studded Pentagon advisory group.
When not fending off terrorists or bucking up the troops in Iraq, Clinton has been equally fierce about defending defense dollars for her home state.
Just ask Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who got the back-off sign from her at an April 19 budget meeting of a Senate Armed Services subcommittee. Clinton isn’t assigned to this smaller group, but she showed up anyway. And we know what she said, because her aides sent out a press release and video snippet of their Democratic boss fighting the good fight on Capitol Hill.
Lieberman, a fellow committee member, had sought a coveted $1.7 billion contract to build the presidential Marine One helicopter in his home state. The deal was awarded January 28 to Lockheed Martin-in upstate New York. Now Clinton feared he would try to block its funding.
She spoke briefly, telling the subcommittee: “Now that the contract has been awarded, we think it is important we proceed expeditiously.” Cut this money, in other words, and you’re crossing me.
As countless knew long before the March 4, 2008 primaries,, and as Barack Obama now understands more than he hoped to imagine, do not threaten Hillary Rodham Clinton or her desired rise to power. The wrath is far greater than a woman’s scorn.
Contempt from the Clinton Camp is intended to crush any member of Congress or rival candidate. The experienced Senator Clinton is skilled in her craft. She is clever and deftly able to avoid confrontation as she did a week prior to the Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont primary elections, during a Democratic Debate, the honorable former First Lady was asked of her position on the North American Free Trade Agreement. There was much controversy surrounding her stance.
In 1997, Hillary Rodham Clinton expressed her support for the action. “The simple fact is, nations with free-market systems do better,” she said in a 1997 speech to the Corporate Council on Africa. “Look around the globe: Those nations, which have lowered trade barriers, are prospering more than those that have not.”
At the 1998 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, she praised corporations for mounting “a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of Nafta.” She added: “It is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun.”
She continued to endorse the accord for quite some time. Once in the Senate, Clinton voted inconsistently on trade policy. Hence, the issue was [and is] of great import. Specifically, in Ohio, where the most recent debate was held, workers struggle to survive. Jobs once held by American laborers are ‘outsourced.’ Since the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] was initiated, employment is fragile. Yet, when given the opportunity to discuss what Senator Clinton would do about trade agreements as President of the United States, Clinton deviated from the subject and instead voiced her objection. She did not speak to how the economy was hurt by NAFTA. She addressed her own distress.
Before focusing on the topic, she said she found it “curious” . . . that, according to her, at the “last several debates” she seemed to be targeted for the first question.
We can’t recall if she’s right about that. But we’re pretty sure the matter will have been thoroughly vetted by morning. It also will be interesting to see if Clinton will be seen as standing up for herself or acting a bit petulant.
It all might have been mainly a ruse to work in that reference to the SNL spoof that showed Obama being fawned over by media types. Here was the entire Clinton remark, when the NAFTA query was kicked her way:
“Well, could I just point out that, in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time. And I don’t mind. You know, I’ll be happy to field them, but I do find it curious. And if anybody saw ‘Saturday Night Live,’ you know, maybe we should ask Barack if he’s comfortable and needs another pillow.”
Hillary Clinton, as was obvious through her numerous odious remarks did not care whether her adversary was cozy. Indeed, she intended to ensure he was not. Behind the scenes and far off in Canada, the Clinton campaign worked to establish that Barack Obama or one of his advisers might be insincere. Early on, there was no mention of the mendaciousness within the Clinton Camp. Hillary and all those who help her focused on what presumed was her manifest destiny. However, as time marches on, Americans have a truer picture. Will Louis Murray have reason to pause?
(CNN) – Hillary Clinton’s campaign is denying a Canadian report Thursday that suggests her campaign called representatives of that nation’s government to re-assure them that despite campaign rhetoric, they would not seek changes to NAFTA – an allegation they used against Barack Obama’s campaign in the days leading up to Tuesday’s critical primary votes.
“Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from,” Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said in a statement. . . .
The Canadian government has said it is investigating the source of the leak. The Canadian Press reported Thursday that the comment that sparked the original story may have come from Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper’s chief of staff, Ian Brodie – and that his remark had implicated Clinton’s campaign, not Obama’s.
The Thursday story also said CTV’s Washington bureau had initially decided to report on Clinton. The New York senator was mentioned in the final report, but it focused on Obama’s aide. . .
Earlier this week, the Obama campaign admitted Goolsbee and consulate officials had spoken, but not under the direction of the campaign, and said that a leaked Canadian government memo implying otherwise had mischaracterized the substance of the discussion.
Substance is a shaky matter. The experienced candidate comprehends this. Hillary Clinton who has achieved an image of strength understands the weight of her words. When the Senator from the Empire State chided rival Barack Obama, she set a tone and advanced an agenda that would be the impetus for further insinuations.
Clinton’s gambit may have struck some of those critiquing the debate as woeful, but SNL opened its latest show with another skit depicting Obama as the media’s darling — and her as its victim. More to the point, the coda to the sketch was an “Editorial Response” — delivered by the candidate herself.
Hillary Clinton learned her lesson well, when her husband’s affaire de coeur was revealed. Clinton realized if the public feels her pain, she garners admiration, appreciation, and awe. The Presidential hopeful was reminded of this recently. In New Hampshire, tired and distressed, the forlorn former First Lady tearfully spoke of her despair. The people responded. In that race as well, Hillary Clinton snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.
This experienced elected official, knows how to play the game, and even make the rules. Hillary Clinton rants; she rages. She is a self-proclaimed “fighter.” The soon to be coronated Commander-In-Chief, if she has her way chuckles when a coy response is required. She croons and catches America off guard. Hillary Clinton cries, and many weep with her. People relate to the rhetoric of Hillary Rodham Clinton, and why would they not.
Clinton loaded her speeches with a laundry list of policy promises . . . She boasted of the endorsements she has received from retired admirals and generals, including two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (both of whom, as it happens, served under her husband). “I’ve been very specific in this election,” she said in a serious understatement.
And she’s been equally specific in her blistering critiques of Obama of late. On Monday, after the Associated Press reported that Obama’s senior economic adviser had indeed privately told Canadian consular officials not to take the candidate’s anti-NAFTA rhetoric all that seriously, Clinton lit into both Obama and the media. She said the alleged communication, which the senior adviser claimed had been misinterpreted, shows the Obama campaign has “done the old wink-wink. Don’t pay any attention. This is just political rhetoric.” She also suggested the media would be treating this more seriously if she had done it. “With this story, substitute my name for Senator Obama’s and just ask yourself.
Oooops. It seems of late we might have to, for as noted earlier in this essay, the tale may be as true if not truer for the Clinton folks than it ever was for the Obama campaign. The circumstances of this conundrum are yet to fully be realized. However, the situation does not look good for the Clintons. Yet, that “truth” does not deter Hillary “Comeback” Clinton. She continues.
At times, it seemed Clinton was all but accusing Obama of being an empty suit. She warned voters not to be swayed by speeches that left them thinking, “That was beautiful, but what did it mean?” Defending her provocative television ad suggesting he was not up to the challenge of answering the White House phone at 3 a.m. in a crisis, she told reporters at a news conference Monday in Toledo: “I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House.
I know Senator McCain [the presumptive Republican nominee] has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002″ – a reference to the address in which Obama, before being elected to the Senate, had publicly opposed the Iraq invasion that she and McCain had voted to authorize.
While the clamor increases, few are able to focus on the more quiet and calm candidate, the Presidential hopeful who displays calm in a storm, Barack Obama. On the defensive as he has been forced to be in the first week of March, the candidate remains cool. The Senator from Illinois does not squeak and therefore, may not receive the oil. Nor must reporters toil in order to gain access or information from Barack Obama. While this subtle nuance is rarely discussed, it may be quite significant. At least it is to the Assistant Managing Editor, of “Newsweek”.
Evan Thomas spoke of his bewilderment on Hardball, with Chris Matthews. As a group of pundits bandied about the details of the March 4 election results and all the doings that led to the conclusion, a sweeping Clinton win, the conversation turned to talk of who would be the best Commander-In-Chief. The 3 Ante Meridian red phone call commercial crept into the dialogue.
Evan Thomas, Assistant Managing Editor, “Newsweek”: One thing I don’t get about the ad, the whole idea of 3:00 a.m. is, you want coolness and detachment, right?
She is not cool and detached. She is really either hot and angry or she’s icy cold and tough. But I don’t think of her as being cool. I think of Obama as being the cool, detached guy. Now, maybe he doesn’t have the experience, but I think, if you peel this onion, there is something about it that just doesn’t make sense to me.
I mean, she doesn’t strike me as the person who is the cool, detached, steady person at the other end of the phone.
Barack Obama however, is steady. The potential President said of himself in an interview with Time Correspondent, Joe Klein. “It’s just not my style to go out of my way to offend people or be controversial just for the sake of being controversial. That’s offensive and counterproductive. It makes people feel defensive and more resistant to changes.” Barack Obama does invite inquiry; however, in a mild tone. Frequently, the less ferrous candidate asks Americans, might we fully examine Hillary Clinton’s experience? Perhaps, we, the people, should. If we are to truly trust Hillary Clinton as Louis Murray does, it is important that we know why we have faith in this future leader.
As first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton jaw-boned the authoritarian president of Uzbekistan to leave his car and shake hands with people. She argued with the Czech prime minister about democracy. She cajoled Roman Catholic and Protestant women to talk to one another in Northern Ireland. She traveled to 79 countries in total, little of it leisure; one meeting with mutilated Rwandan refugees so unsettled her that she threw up afterward.
But during those two terms in the White House, Mrs. Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda.
And during one of President Bill Clinton’s major tests on terrorism, whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Mrs. Clinton was barely speaking to her husband, let alone advising him, as the Lewinsky scandal sizzled.
Perhaps, pillow talk was not always pleasant in the Clinton household. Granted we know the two stayed together. We can assume they worked through the problems that presented themselves in those earlier troubled times. Bill was there for Hillary when she decided to run for her Senate seat. The former President is his wife’s chief cheerleader. Bill, just as Hillary boast of her record and the résumé.
In seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, Mrs. Clinton lays claim to two traits nearly every day: strength and experience. But as the junior senator from New York, she has few significant legislative accomplishments to her name. She has cast herself, instead, as a first lady like no other: a full partner to her husband in his administration, and, she says, all the stronger and more experienced for her “eight years with a front-row seat on history.” . . .
And late last week, Mr. Obama suggested that more foreign policy experts from the Clinton administration were supporting his candidacy than hers; his campaign released a list naming about 45 of them, and said that others were not ready to go public. Mrs. Clinton quickly put out a list of 80 who were supporting her, and plans to release another 75 names on Wednesday.
The competitive, confrontation, conduct of Hillary Clinton is consistently clear. Possibly, her character traits are the qualities she thinks define her as a Commander-In-Chief. The experience the former First Lady speaks of may entail more than her thirty-five years with Bill. Certainly, her persona has been with her for a lifetime. It seems her duties as the First Spouse were negligible.
Mrs. Clinton’s role in her most high-profile assignment as first lady, the failed health care initiative of the early 1990s, has been well documented. Yet, little has been made public about her involvement in foreign policy and national security as first lady. Documents about her work remain classified at the National Archives. Mrs. Clinton has declined to divulge the private advice she gave her husband.
An interview with Mrs. Clinton, conversations with 35 Clinton administration officials and a review of books about her White House years suggest that she was more of a sounding board than a policy maker, who learned through osmosis rather than decision-making, and who grew gradually more comfortable with the use of military power.
Her time in the White House was a period of transition in foreign policy and national security, with the cold war over and the threat of Islamic terrorism still emerging . . .
She did not wrestle directly with many of the other challenges the next president will face, including managing a large-scale deployment – or withdrawal – of troops abroad, an overhaul of the intelligence agencies or the effort to halt the spread of nuclear weapons technology. Most of her exposure to the military has come since she left the White House through her seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
My personal experience may serve to enlighten. Each morning I awaken and we talk. He tells me tales. Barry details his dreams, those he experienced in his sleep and those he aspires to achieve throughout the day. We reflect on what was the day before. Barry and I discuss as we did before bed, what occurred in the office. His suite is not oval is shape. The walls in his workplace are angular.
When my significant other, my partner, thought to “stay the course,” an associate advised him that might be best. Business decisions can be brutal. As an authority figure within the corporate structure Barry, must be sensitive to his base, the people who support him in his struggle to succeed. I questioned that truth, or did I comfort Barry, assure him that he must accomplish the mission. Whatever I said, most definitely, I shared his burden.
I have helped my closest friend and confidant through many a corporate crisis. I listened and offered opinions. Yet, his experiences in his work were not mine. I am capable; yet, I could not do what Barry does daily. Barry and I are a couple. We are extremely close, intimate, and united. However, we are not one. Who he is, what he thinks, says, does, and feels, is distinctly unique to him. I have never been his eyes, his ears, and certainly, I do not have his heart. I may know Barry better than any other human could. Couples have told us they have never met two people that speak more openly or often than the two of us.
Nonetheless, after all these decades, I could not walk into his executive suite and do his job as though I had done it forever. Indeed, Barry commands with finesse. Perchance, I could be as eloquent. However, I will never be Barry. Nor was his experience my own. I stand alone, as me, myself, and I.
Yet, in this election season, I and all other Democratic voters are asked to suspend disbelief and forget Hillary Clinton’s own account.
Mrs. Clinton said in the interview that she was careful not to overstep her bounds on national security, relying instead on informal access. . . .
She said she did not attend National Security Council meetings, nor did she have a security clearance.
When osmosis, access, right of entry, and contact defines experience, we need not wonder why the State of the Union is dismal. If a person who we sometimes share a bed with qualifies as our alter-ego, then perhaps we have had many women Presidents.
Hillary Clinton is exceptional in that her experience encompasses manipulation, exploitation, and ethics a peacemaker who not value. The depth and breath Clinton alludes to is arguably, illusive. Her excellent management style leaves a staff, as the Washington Post notes, even in victory, battling itself. Yet, these qualities have impressed voters such as John Murray. What does this say of us, a people so ready to attack another country, that before we bombed innocent men, women, and children, we did not verify the “intelligence?”
While not cool, calm, or collected, Hillary Clinton exudes a strength that leads many Americans to believe she has been and will continue to be Commander-In-Chief. Congratulations Senator, former First Lady, and possibly President Hillary Rodham Clinton. You have convinced citizens to suspend disbelief and many do.
This year, perhaps more than any time in the past, Americans are reminded of race relations each and every day. On televisions, on the radio, airwaves are filled with talk of the current Presidential campaign. For the first time in this nation’s history, a viable Presidential hopeful is not a white. Barack Obama is a Black man; he is profound and has purpose. Early on, Anglo Americans, and even some people of color, wondered if Obama authentically represented African-Americans. Countless inquired of Obama’s experience, not in Congress, but in the ghettos of this country. The prominent periodical, Time Magazine, published a cover story titled, “Is Obama Black Enough? As Sociologists assess, there is reason to believe another question is apt, “Are Caucasians white enough, or are they too white to understand the Black experience?”
The Black experience is as all other occurrences. Each is unique to the individual. Nevertheless, in a society where clear delineations are evident, we can observe, life as an African-American is not as easy. Circumstances common among Blacks are unthinkable to Caucasians. Anglos rarely appreciate persons of color are not truly different, only the conditions they live under vary.
While white Americans are happy to acknowledge that the Black man or woman they work with, as a singular person, is wonderful, Caucasians are quick to avow, that the individual they know is not like the rest of “those” people. Pinkish people do not understand. Hence . . .
Columbus, Ohio – How much do white Americans think it “costs” to be black in our society, given the problems associated with racial bias and prejudice?
The answer, it appears, is not much.
When white Americans were asked to imagine how much they would have to be paid to live the rest of their lives as a black person, most requested relatively low amounts, generally less than $10,000.
In contrast, study participants said they would have to be paid about $1 million to give up television for the rest of their lives.
The results suggest most white Americans don’t truly comprehend the persisting racial disparities in our country, said Philip Mazzocco, co-author of the study and assistant professor of psychology at Ohio State University’s Mansfield campus.
“The costs of being black in our society are very well documented,” Mazzocco said. “Blacks have significantly lower income and wealth, higher levels of poverty, and even shorter life spans, among many other disparities, compared to whites.”
For example, white households average about $150,000 more wealth than the typical black family. Overall, total wealth for white families is about five times greater than that of black families, a gap that has persisted for years.
“When whites say they would need $1 million to give up TV, but less than $10,000 to become black, that suggests they don’t really understand the extent to which African Americans, as a group, are disadvantaged,” Mazzocco said.
What Anglos do understand are the generalizations they hold dear. Black persons are different than whites, and they are, in large part because a society that favors people of pinkish paler hues has created a cast system that bars African-Americans from achieving as they might.
Incomes are lower, access to adequate educational facilities are few. Health Care coverage is out of reach for those with limited opportunity and wealth. Discrimination against those whose color differs from the main is ample. In the abstract, Anglo Americans grasp that those placed lower on the socio-economic ladder suffer. White Americans know they would not wish to live as a Black American does.
[I]n one study, whites were told to imagine that they were about to be born as a random white person in America, but they were being offered a cash gift to be born as a random black person. Once again, white participants requested relatively small sums to make a life-long race-change. In addition, some were given a list of some of the costs of being black in America, such as the racial wealth disparity. The result was that whites in this latter scenario requested significantly higher amounts than those in the previous studies – about $500,000.
Finally, some participants were given a similar scenario except all references to blacks, whites, and America were taken out. They were asked to imagine they were born into the fictional country of Atria, and were born either into the “majority” or “minority” population. They were given a list of the disadvantages that the minority population faced in Atria (which were identical to the real disadvantages faced by blacks in America). In this case, white participants in the study said they should be paid an average of $1 million to be born as a minority member in Atria.
“When you take it out of the black-white context, white Americans seem to fully appreciate the costs associated with the kinds of disparities that African Americans actually face in the United States,” Mazzocco said. “In this case, they asked for a million dollars, similar to what they want for giving up television.”
Mazzocco said blatant prejudice was not the reason for the findings. Results showed that whites who scored higher on a measure of racial prejudice did not answer significantly differently than others in the study.
Often those who are out of touch with what is true for another are not knowingly bigoted. As children, we learn to believe as we do. Most Americans are oblivious, no matter how well informed they, we might be.
However, if we are honest with ourselves, people know what is philosophically true for them personally, may not be valid. We are each similar, yet, never the same. A human desire to categorize places us in jeopardy. When we define others, or ourselves as Black or white we cripple our communities, as evident through statistical data. The numbers speak volumes, so too do people if we bother to ask them of their values.
Social Scientists surveyed those of disparate groups, and discovered what we could know intellectually. Those who physically do and do not resemble us share our values. Although experiences may be divergent, we need only think of our siblings to realize the adage “All men are created equal,” does not mean every being is identical in appearance; nevertheless, essentially we are related. My blue eyed-sister is not as I am. She sees the world through her own lens. A brown-eyed brother cannot think, say, do, feel, or be as me. Still, we are akin. Biologically persons may be similar. They are never the same; nor are there stark contrasts.
Every human values principles that honor all men, women, and children unvaryingly. Innately, two-legged creatures crave caring connections. We all want to have the rights reverence affords, just as our brethren do. Every person is made of blood, sweat, and tears. Humans have inherent worth. Shared ignorance does not allow people to act on our deepest beliefs. the essence of our beauty is not just skin deep. It is part of our being whether we are Black or white.
Researchers remind us, in November 2007, it is time to “Redefine What It Means to Be Black in America.” The Social and Demographic division of Pew Research Center, in conjunction with National Public Radio surveyed a large group of Americans, a large portion of those who participated were Black. This fact alone sets this report apart from earlier examinations which most relied on data from white Americans. The review titled, Blacks See Growing Values Gap Between Poor and Middle Class, Optimism about Black Progress Declines, we discover the times and trends are changing, or perhaps our awareness of what is has been altered. Many African-Americans do not identify themselves with the accepted definition of Black.
A Single Race?
Another revelatory finding in the Pew poll is that 37 percent of African Americans now agree that it is no longer appropriate to think of black people as a single race. A little more than half of the black people polled, 53 percent, agreed that it is right to view blacks as a single race. And the people most likely to say blacks are no longer a single race are young black people, ages 18-29.
Forty-four percent of those young black people say there is no one black race anymore, as compared to 35 percent of the 30- to 49-year-old black population, and 34 percent of the black people over age 65.
The split in the black race comes down to a matter of values, according to the poll. In response to the question, “Have the values of middle-class and poor blacks become more similar or more different?” 61 percent of black Americans said “more different.” White Americans agreed, with 54 percent saying there is a growing values gap between the black middle class and the black poor; 45 percent of Hispanics agreed, too.
At the same time, 72 percent of whites, 54 percent of blacks, and 60 percent of Hispanics agree that in the last 10 years, “values held by black people and the values held by white people (have) become more similar.”
While the ethos may appear equivalent, upon closer examination a variance among respondents emerges. In nationwide telephone interviews, with a representative sample of 3,086 adults, conducted from September 5-October 6, 2007, we learn what an “over-sampled” total of 1007 African Americans, 388 Hispanics, and 1671 Anglos believe.
Big gaps in perception between blacks and whites emerge on many topics. For example, blacks believe that anti-black discrimination is still pervasive in everyday life; whites disagree. And blacks have far less confidence than whites in the basic fairness of the criminal justice system.
Over the past two decades, blacks have lost some confidence in the effectiveness of leaders within their community, including national black political figures, the clergy, and the NAACP. A sizable majority of blacks still see all of these groups as either very or somewhat effective, but the number saying “very” effective has declined since 1986.
These statements may correlate to what is real for too many African-Americans. Income Gap Between Blacks, Whites Expands. The Brookings Institute in cooperation with National Public Radio revealed in a recent report, while Black Americans can no longer be thought of as a distinct group, if they ever were, as a whole, people of color have not benefited from a “free and open” society, as Caucasians have. Anglos remain oblivious. Intolerant attitudes inform whites. The same bigoted perspectives hinder an ability to relate, and recognize how different the Black experience is.
Again, in November 2007, Americans were given an opportunity to assess the clash bias has created. In a culture, founded on the principles of equality, Americans prefer to practice prejudiced policies. In the United States, people whose skin is dark are not afforded the opportunities bestowed upon their counterparts, Caucasian Americans.
In brief, trends show that median family incomes have risen for both black and white families, but less so for black families. Moreover, the intergenerational analysis reveals a significant difference in the extent to which parents are able to pass their economic advantages onto their children. Whereas children of white middle-income parents tend to exceed their parents in income, a majority of black children of middle-income parents fall below their parents in income and economic status. These findings are provided in more detail below.
Median family income for both black and white families has increased over the last 30 years, but income gaps still persist.
Between 1974 and 2004, white and black men in their 30s experienced a decline in income, with the largest decline among black men. However, median family incomes for both racial groups increased, because of large increases in women’s incomes. Income growth was particularly high for white women.
The lack of income growth for black men combined with low marriage rates in the black population has had a negative impact on trends in family income for black families.
There was no progress in reducing the gap in family income between blacks and whites. In 2004, median family income of blacks ages 30 to 39 was only 58 percent that of white families in the same age group ($35,000 for blacks compared to $60,000 for whites).
Black children grow up in families with much lower income than white children.
White children are more likely to surpass parents’ income than black children at a similar point in the income distribution.
Overall, approximately two out of three blacks (63 percent) exceed their parents’ income after the data are adjusted for inflation, similar to the percentage for whites.
However, a majority of blacks born to middle-income parents grow up to have less income than their parents. Only 31 percent of black children born to parents in the middle of the income distribution have family income greater than their parents, compared to 68 percent of white children from the same income bracket. . . .
White children are more likely to move up the ladder while black children are more likely to fall down.
Startlingly, almost half (45 percent) of black children whose parents were solidly middle class end up falling to the bottom of the income distribution, compared to only 16 percent of white children. Achieving middle-income status does not appear to protect black children from future economic adversity the same way it protects white children.
Black children from poor families have poorer prospects than white children from such families. More than half (54 percent) of black children born to parents in the bottom quintile stay in the bottom, compared to 31 percent of white children.
Perhaps, the way in which the Black population experiences income inequity and discrimination, accounts for the lack of confidence in African-American leaders among the population, or did until very recently. In the Fall of 2007, before the first caucus in Iowa or the initial primary ballots in New Hampshire were cast, people of color in the United States expressed a glimmer of hope. While many people whose skin cast a brownish-purple hue were devoted to the Clinton campaign, they recognized that Barack Obama shed a powerful light on the issue of color. Again, the Pew Research Center, Social and Demographic Trends division concluded . . .
The most newsworthy African American figure in politics today – Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama – draws broadly (though not intensely felt) favorable ratings from both blacks and whites. But blacks are more inclined to say that his race will detract from his chances to be elected president; whites are more inclined to say his relative inexperience will hurt his chances.
Three-quarters of blacks (76%) say that Obama is a good influence on the black community. Even greater numbers say this about Oprah Winfrey (87%) and Bill Cosby (85%), who are the most highly regarded by blacks from among 14 black newsmakers tested in this survey. By contrast, just 17% of blacks say that rap artist 50 Cent is a good influence.
Months prior to these results a conversation ensued that may have helped to alter a long accepted perception. The son of a white woman from Kansas, whose father was native to Kenya, Barack Obama was asked, “How important is race in defining yourself?” Perhaps, esteemed Senator, and Presidential candidate, Obama spoke for many African-Americans, most of whom understand their bloodline may be mixed. He might have also addressed what Anglo Americans understand, if not consciously. No matter the color of our skin, few of us are purebred. While people may presume to know who we are based on a preconceived notion, we are all more than our appearance. [If only as a society, we acted on this veracity.]
Obama: I think all of us in America and particularly African-Americans have to think about race at some point in our lives. The way I like to think about it, I am rooted in the African-American community, but I’m not defined by it. I am comfortable in my racial identity and recognize that I’m part of a very specific set of experiences in this country, but that’s not the core of who I am. Another way of saying is that’s not all I am . . .
One of the things that helped me to resolve a lot of these issues is the realization that the African-American community, which I’m now very much feel a part of, is itself a hybrid community. It’s African. It’s European. It’s Native American. So it’s much more difficult to define what the essential African-American experience is, at least more difficult than what popular culture would allow.
What I also realized is that the American experience is, by definition, a hybrid experience. I mean, you know one of the strengths of this country is that we have these people coming from, you know, all four corners of the globe converging, and sometimes in conflict, living side by side, and over time coming together to create this tapestry that is incredibly strong.
And so, in that sense, I feel that my background ironically, because it’s unusual, is quintessentially American.
Americans of any race know that their ancestry is likely mixed. Whites are not pedigrees; nor are Blacks. Yet, pinkish people feel they can or must delineate when they define a dark complexioned person. Too often, in the United States, an African-American is described by their visible lineage, set apart because of the color of their skin. Yet, what of whites? How do we classify a paler person who may be part Irish, Italian, German, or English?
Apparently, a year ago, in February 2007, 60 Minutes Host Steve Kroft thought he knew what it meant to be Anglo or to be raised among white people. Mister Kroft made repeated references to the candidate’s Caucasian mother, and Obama’s childhood history. He said, “You spent most of your life in a white household.” “I mean, you grew up white.” “You were raised in a white household?” These statements were presented as though they were significant. The presumption was, in a white home people think, say, do, feel, and are different than those in a Black family. The evidence says this is not so. Yet, the myth remains firm. Hence, the journalist offered an observation, odd as it may be to some.
Kroft: [A]t some point, you decided that you were black?
The answer might have informed Black and white alike. The response may have encouraged African-Americans to be more vocal by the time they were surveyed nine months later. Possibly, the response had no influence. After centuries of racial discrimination, Black person may just be sick and tired of being sick and tired.
Whatever the reason for the realizations that emerged in the Pew Research report, finally, there is an incentive to believe. Hope is alive. A Black American, or many African-Americans, together, can change the persistent culture.
Presidential aspirant, Senator Obama spoke a truth that rattled a rigid reality. Stereotypes are exactly that. They need not characterize any of us, nor do we, as a nation need to endorse what divides us. Barack Obama explained . . .
Well, I’m not sure I decided it. I think if you look African-American in this society, you’re treated as an African-American. And when you’re a child, in particular that is how you begin to identify yourself. At least that’s what I felt comfortable identifying myself as . . .
[T]here is racial prejudice in our society that we do continue to carry the historical legacy of Jim Crow and slavery. We’ve never fully addressed that. It manifests itself in much higher rates of poverty and violence and lack of educational achievement in minority communities. But I know in my heart that there is a core decency to the American people, and that decency can be tapped.
I think America is at the point now where if a white person has the time to get to know who you are, that they are willing on average to look beyond race and judge you as an individual. That doesn’t mean that they’ve stopped making snap judgments. It doesn’t mean that before I was Barack Obama, and I was just Barack Obama, that if I got into an elevator, a woman might not clutch her purse a little tighter. Or if I’m walking down the street, that you might not hear some clicks of doors locking, right. I mean, there’s still a host of stereotypes that I think a lot of people are operating under. But I think if they have time to get to know you, they will judge you as they would judge anybody else, and I think that’s enormous progress.
We’ve made progress. Yes, things are better. But better is not good enough. And we’ve still got a long way to go.
Indeed, America has much to do as a nation if we are to heal what has harmed us as a people. If this country is to be truly healthy and authentically honorable, we must act as equals. To allow Black Americans to suffer at the hands of “compassionate” Caucasians, to deny the similarities, and amplify the differences does not bode well. A man, woman, or child must be judged by the quality of his character, not the color of his skin. Let us have the courage of our convictions. It is time to create a culture of community.
Often when there is a passing, I write homage to the person. I rarely pen my thoughts in the present, the moment I hear of the loss. I prefer to ponder. My desire is to assess the true “life” energy of the individual. Documenting the biographical information seems so limiting to me. I rather reflect upon who the personality was in my life or in that of others.
I was, not surprisingly, at the keyboard when the passing of Ed Bradley was announced. I assessed my feelings and listened to the words of many that knew him. Airwaves, broadband, television, and radio reported. They each described “Easy Ed,” a name befitting his well-known demeanor.
Stations shared the statistics; they mentioned his place of birth, my own birthplace, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Broadcasters spoke the forty years Mr. Bradley worked with CBS. They focused on his noteworthy career with Sixty Minutes, a prominent and highly regarded CBS News program. Ed Bradley was an award-winning journalist within this news magazine forum for twenty-six years!
There was ample discussion of how he became a broadcaster. The topic, among those dearest to my heart, the authentic acceptance of a Black man in a white world was often cited, even among other younger Black journalist. Some mention that Ed Bradley was their earliest inspiration. They aspired to be as this gentle media giant was.
There was talk of his love for jazz. His way with words, and people was ever present in the day following the Bradley passing. There was much to be said of such a strong, caring, and quality man, an amazing person. I absorbed it all.
As I heard all of the eulogies, the one thing that struck me was as my perception of Mr. Bradley. He was a love bug. He genuinely cared for others and displayed this in his every breath. When his fellow workers were in a bad place, backbiting and succumbing to a stressful situation, he did not. Bradley invited the staff to his apartment, locked them in, and insisted they work through their differences. That is a man with true heart.
Thus, I concluded, I did not wish to offer dry facts pertaining to this magnificent man. I want to share a sense of the beautiful being Ed Bradley is. I present profiles from those that knew him well, friends, familiars, and fellow workers.
“He had a way of bringing out the best in everyone. He did it – whether it was Derek Jeter, George Burns, or Lena Horne. It’s very, sort of, difficult to quantify Ed Bradley. He just was. He was Ed Bradley and that was enough.”
– Don Hewitt, creator, 60 Minutes
“It was his humanity, his compassion – starting way back with those Cambodian boat people where he stopped being a reporter. He could get things out of people because he, I don’t know, he just had a way of being honest about himself. He was so comfortable in his own skin.”
– Lesley Stahl, correspondent,60 Minutes
“I don’t think that in the twenty years I knew him I ever saw him lose his composure. I saw him lose his temper a couple of times, but I never saw him lose his composure. People try and tell reporters that you should ‘walk with the people.’ Well, Ed truly walked with the people.”
– Steve Kroft, correspondent,60 Minutes
“When you think of the overall body of work he did, it’s hard to imagine anybody could ever duplicate that. You don’t replace a man like Ed Bradley at any news organization. He is a legend, and we’re going to miss his work. But, I think just as important, we’re going to miss Ed Bradley the man.”
– Sean McManus, President,CBS News and CBS Sports
“A kind, gentle, strong man. A first-rate reporter and a first-rate human being. And I cannot believe what I have heard about his passing. Strong – always in and out of gymnasiums trying to keep in shape. It’s just a shock. When he laughed, he laughed whole-heartedly from down deep. He was just an absolutely delightful man.”
– Mike Wallace, correspondent,60 Minutes
“Ed Bradley was simply the coolest person I have ever known. He was a great observer of the American scene with a shrewd eye and a terrific sense of humor. And let me tell you, no one ever put one over on Ed Bradley. Ed was a great person to be a around who never forgot where he came from. He was a great helper to African-American journalists. He was also the softest touch in town. He wasn’t into the celebrity charity thing, but he helped a whole lot of people over the years who really needed it.”
– Bob Schieffer, Chief Washington Correspondent and host of Face The Nation
“It’s a sad day at CBS News and really for all of journalism. This is a family here today that is devastated by the loss of Ed.” – Rome Hartman, Executive Producer,CBS Evening New With Katie Couric, and former producer, 60 Minutes.
“Ed Bradley encompassed everything you admire in a great journalist – he loved the chase – he loved the reveal of a great story – he had the ability to connect with people on a very human level. One of the great parts about Ed was that he valued where he had come from and his journey to where he was. He understood that he was a role model for many people. If someone came running around a corner saying ‘Ed, Ed,’ he would stop, turn around, walk to that person, and shake their hand. Ed inspired you. Ed made you want to be better at your job. There’s one other great part about being with Ed… You were much cooler if you stood next to Ed Bradley. He was the coolest man on the planet. I miss him already.”
— Susan Zirinsky, Executive Producer,48 Hours
“I had the good fortune to work with him as his writer on a prime time magazine program called Street Stories in the early ‘90s. I was awed by him. He had this quiet dignity and decency. And stature. You tried to stand a little taller when he came into the room. It was more than mere physical presence. I once cracked to someone that writing for him was like writing for Othello. But it was true. There was a larger-than-life quality to him.”
— Greg Kandra, Editor,Company
“It’s an incredibly sad day for everyone at CBS News. Ed was a phenomenal reporter and a great man. Never have the words ‘he will be missed’ meant more.”
— Bill Owens, Senior Broadcast Producer,CBS Evening News With Katie Couric
“He was such an elegant person and a great reporter. He was also my friend. We are so lucky to have known him. He raised the bar for all of us.”
— Mary Alice Williams, writer,CBS Evening News With Katie Couric
“He was such an inspiration for me. The thing about Ed is he’s such a legend, but he’s also just a really hip, wonderful, talented guy. He had such an amazing heart.”
— Michele Filgate, Production Secretary,CBS Evening News With Katie Couric and a former intern for 60 Minutes