Frida Kahlo and Fibromyalgia

A good friend sent me this image and notes last night, and I have to say I now view Frida Kahlo's work in a new light. I've seen the painting. I've seen Selma Hayek's movie Frida. This portrait well portrays the anguish and pain.

Here's what my friend sent me:

The great Mexican painter Frida Kahlo suffered chronic widespread pain and exhaustion after a terrible accident. Our research suggests that FM was the cause of Frida's chronic illness.

Many of Frida's portraits, for example in Kahlo Columna Rota (The Broken Column) communicate pain and anguish with the emotional overtones that FM patients frequently use to describe their illness. In her diary, Frida draws herself in pain and eleven arrows point to specific anatomical sites. Many years later, the majority of these sites were found to be the typical fibromyalgia tender points.

In my own research, and as I remember from the film, Frida Kahlo was in a car accident in late adult hood. Car accidents are a documented cause for the onset of FM.

Analysis on Hillary's 5 Weaknesses

Interesting analysis from Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen at Politico. They point out 5 Reasons Hillary Should Be Worried.

They are:

1. She lost the delegate derby
2. She essentially tied Obama in the popular vote
3. She lost more states
4. She lost the January cash war (and the cash war since, see this below, plus Obama is up to 7 million (Hillary is at 4M) but Obama's amount does not include fundraising that MoveOn is doing for Obama, which should be released later today.)
   
5. The calendar is her enemy

To see why these facts could cause her concern check out the piece. It's not too long, but informative.

Hillary in Synch with Giuliani on which Book is Essential

The Evening News With Katie Couric did an interesting thing. They asked each of the candidates "If you were elected president, what is the one book other than the bible you would think is essential to have along?"

Here's a summary of what they said. Note not only did Giuliani throw in the bible anyway and otherwise not follow instructions by naming several, his answer is the same as Clinton's.

And consider her answer. If the constitution is so important to understand, maybe a 10 year constitutional law professor would be the best candidate. See this post (reason number 10).

I think both Clinton's and Giuliani's answers are cop outs.

John McCain - Adam Smith "Wealth of Nations"
Barack Obama - Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals"
Mitt Romney - David McCullough's "John Adams"
Mike Huckabee - Francis Schafer's "Whatever Happened to the Human Race"
John Edwards - I.F. Stones's "The Trial of Socrates"
Hillary Clinton - US Constitution, "Federalist Papers"
Rudy Giuliani - Bible, "Federalist Papers," US Constitution and Declaration of Independence

You can watch here:

What Hillary Didn't Learn From Her Health Care Debacle

In case you missed this column in all the Super Tuesday hoopla, don't miss this column of David Brooks.

I remember Rep. Jim Cooper from my days in the 89-91 working on the Hill. He is a smart, nice man.

I'd forgotten about this, but as soon as I started to read it all came flooding back.

I had heard of it and read of it at the time. And these kind of tactics and approach are exactly how she alienated Sens. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Bill Bradley. Moynihan pointedly reminded Hillary Clinton that she couldn’t INTRODUCE legislation, because she was acting as if she didn’t need them.

It’s exactly that kind of behavior that makes me a. loath her and b. believe she can’t bring about the change she’s promising. It doesn’t seem to me that she’s learned the right lessons from her mistakes then. She has asserted that it was a communication problem - that they were too secretive (which they were) rather that a problem with her framework and how she approached the issue. Basically, Hillary co-opted the job of Congress, doing their work for them and the reform was so complicate they couldn't explain it in words to rally up public support.

Not that words matter!

Sum up on Money, Delegates, States and Popular Vote

MONEY = Okay – beside the amounts Obama is raising – and it’s just astonishing that after raising 3x as much money as Hillary the Clintons in January – that since Obama has raised 4,253,799 – in less than 24 hours (the polls closed at 12:30 am in Alaska)! Note that in the graphic below the Obama campaign is lumping Bill in with Hillary. And much of Hillary’s staff is working without pay, including her campaign manager.

DELEGATES = Obama won the delegates (by four – and really they’re still figuring it out, but the parts of the country that are up in the air are in states where Obama won). To find out more about the very varying reports from various news sources on the delegate count, you can check out this (as of 6 pm tonight).

STATES = number of states 13-9 (New Mexico is still being counted, difference in the 100s).

POPULAR VOTE = popular vote was – I’m not kidding a difference of about 50,000. Approximately15,000,000 people voted. Clinton = 7,347,971 Obama = 7,294,851 (that would be less that 4/10^TH of 1%). That’s as unbelievable as Obama raising over 4 million online in less than a day.

Democratic Delegate Allocation Tutorial

Thank you David Schuster of Countdown with Kieth Olbermann

About That Isreali Attack Last Fall on Syria

There IS some other news this week besides the primary today. And this one is worthwhile.

The New Yorker investigative reporter Seymour Hersh writes "A Strike in the Dark" about the September 2007 air strike by Israel on a Syrian "nuclear" facility. The U.S.'s involvement is clear but no government is talking - not Isreal, not Syria and not the US. Hersch, using his Pentagon sources tries to get to the bottom of it. He also puts it all in the context of the heated up tension last fall with Iran.

The N.I.E. was published in November, after a yearlong standoff involving Cheney’s office, which resisted the report’s findings. At the time of the raid (on Syria), reports about the forthcoming N.I.E. and its general conclusion had already appeared.

Hersh illuminates more in this NPR's Talk of the Nation interview yesterday.

About Obama's Speech Writer

And if you want to know a bit about Jon Favreau, age 26, and how he worked on that speech, drinking Coke at the Radisson Hotel in Nashua, New Hampshire, click to read a New York Times Style section piece from January 20th called, What Would Obama Say?

Apparently, being Obama's speech writer is not a great pick line 'cause girls don't believe him.

The campaign staff has started teasing Mr. Favreau about his newfound celebrity. Not that it’s any great pickup line. Mr. Favreau, who said he doesn’t have a girlfriend, observed somewhat dryly that “the rigors of this campaign have prevented any sort of serious relationship.”

“There’s been a few times when people have said, ‘I don’t believe you, that you’re Barack Obama’s speechwriter,’ ” he went on. “To which I reply, ‘If I really wanted to hit on you, don’t you think I’d make up something more outlandish?’ ”

And back on January 6th, Newsweek's Richard Wolfe recounted how Favreau got the job.

Favreau met with Obama and Gibbs in the Senate cafeteria in the Dirksen office building on Capitol Hill on the senator's first day in his new job. Obama didn't want to know about Favreau's résumé, but he did want to know about his motivation.

"What got you into politics, what got you interested?" he asked.

Favreau told him about the social service project he started in Worcester, defending the legal rights of welfare recipients as the state tried to move people off the rolls and into work.

"What is your theory of speechwriting?" Obama asked.

"I have no theory," admitted Favreau. "But when I saw you at the convention, you basically told a story about your life from beginning to end, and it was a story that fit with the larger American narrative. People applauded not because you wrote an applause line but because you touched something in the party and the country that people had not touched before. Democrats haven't had that in a long time."

The pitch worked. Favreau and Obama rapidly found a relatively direct way to work with each other. "What I do is to sit with him for half an hour," Favreau explains. "He talks and I type everything he says. I reshape it, I write. He writes, he reshapes it. That's how we get a finished product.

The Speech That Inspired the Video

When I heard that speech, deep in disappointment, I still felt hopeful. And I thought what a speech for a loser to make. If you want to hear again the speech that Obama gave after narrowly losing New Hampshire that inspired the awesome Yes We Can song, here it is. (The material pulled for the song is about 10 minutes in).

Interview with Makers of Yes We Can Song

Here's an interview with Will.i.am and Jesse Dylan about the music and video they put together called Yes We Can. (the interview includes a showing of the video).

Vanity Fair Profiles Obama in March Issue

But you can read it online here.

More Outrageous Outstanding Obama Numbers

The Washington Post reports in it's campaign blog on Obama's the number of attendees at his rallys in the last week:

20,000 in Wilmington
18,000 in Denver
20,000 in St. Louis
13,000 in Boise

These numbers are unbelievable and unheard of in politics! And 6,000 showed up at an Obama rally, and he wasn't even there.

I moved to DC because I love politics, and it is as if everyone else has finally started to drink my elixir and are getting excited about governing, civics, voting. God bless Obama!

I stood in line for over 2 hours last Monday, with a ticket to the rally at American University (which I signed up for before word of the Kennedys' endorsements). I did not get in. The line was immense and word on the line was that the arena, which was the same place I graduated from law school, held 5,500. The fire marshals wouldn't even let Chris Matthews in. There had to have been 10,000 on line there last Monday, with only about half getting in.

One woman, walking toward the end of the line while we were - finally - moving forward, saw that it turned a corner and kept going, muttered, "Holy sh*t!!" I advised her that was only the first of many times she'd think that. Everyone around laughed because we'd all had gone through that same thought process (about 90 minutes earlier).

With this news, along with the shocking fund raising of 32 million dollars in January, and the closing of the polls - wow - maybe it can happen.

More on Obama's Inner Circle

The Chicago Tribune ran an interesting piece over a year ago - January 14th, 2007, entitled Inside Obama's inner circle: Ahead of a likely presidential campaign, senator relies on core of trusted advisers.

One intriguing quote - on that moment Axelrod, now Obama's campaign manager, realized Obama a different kind of candidate:

Gibbs and Axelrod were standing together on the floor of the Democratic National Convention in Boston in 2004 for the speech that would propel Obama onto the national stage.

The two had emerged from backstage to stand amid the crowd for the speech they’d heard Obama, then the Democratic nominee for the Senate, practice several times. As enthusiasm engulfed the convention delegates, both men say, they knew they were working for something more than the average Senate campaign. People around them were crying.

"Are you seeing what I'm seeing?" Gibbs recalls saying to Axelrod.

Neither man is prone to swooning over candidates.

It's an in depth piece from his home town paper and worth a read.

Public Radio Star Endorses Obama

Garrison Keillor, host of public radio's "A Prairie Home Companion," and "The Writer's Almanac," endorses Obama.

"I'm happy to support your candidacy, which is so full of promise for our country," the best-selling author and humorist wrote in a letter declaring his support. "Seven years of a failed presidency is a depressing thing, and the country is pressing for a change and looking for someone with clear vision who is determined to break through the rhetorical logjam and find sensible ways to move our country forward. That's you, friend."

Round Up of Obama's Endorsements From Women

Elizabeth Moynihan, the widow of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, whose Senate seat Hillary now occupies. Neither of them ever liked Hillary, despite Moynihan's public support (Hillary announced her run for his seat on his farm). That support took some behind the scenes doing between Clinton advisor Mandy Grunwald and Moynihan's daughter, Maura, who were Harvard College roommates, according to New York Times Magazine reporter, Edward Klein.

Alma Rangel, wife of Congressman Charles Rangel. He's the one who suggested Hillary run for the Senate after she campaigned for Senator Charles Schumer in

Ethel Skakel Kennedy, the widow of Robert Kennedy, writes of why she parted ways with three of her offspring (who have endorsed Hillary) in a Huffington Post blog here.

Maria Shriver, wife of Arnold, niece of JFK & RFK, spontaneously decided to make her support public at the Obama rally today in California (yeah, the one with Oprah and Caroline Kennedy and Stevie Wonder). Probably the most exciting moment ever on CSPAN (and I watch a lot of CSPAN).

Unique Obama Political Ad & Music Video

I first saw this political ad for Obama this morning while watching the morning news programs (with a tag for the DC, VA & MD primaries on February 12th - a.k.a the Chesapeake Primary). And I gather tonight it ran during the Superbowl. I had tears in my eyes by the end. It's only 30 seconds.




Joe Scarbourgh broadcast this ad on Morning Joe and remarked with chagrin and astonishment, "Well, that beats I'll cut your taxes." You BET it does!

And then I found out this music video which was released last Friday. More info on artists can be found here. Obama speaks poetry, so I guess it was only a matter of time before someone puts his cadences to music. (In the music video credits Obama is called the CEO of Inspiration).

Its unique, its outstanding, its cool. It's worth every second.




ABC News did a report on it, you can read here. will.i.am (songwriter, founding member and front man for the Black Eyed Peas) produced the music and video, inspired by Obama’s speech after his loss in NH. Director and filmmaker Jesse Dylan, son of another socially active musician, Bob Dylan, did the video.

It's going viral. Send it to every one you know. Yes you can. Yes we can.

What do you think of these? Have you ever seen anything like this in politics? Please comment!

Sitting Behind Paul Wolfowitz

Last night a friend invited me to a classical concert that was part of the Embassy Series. Schubert filled the program in honor of his birthday (which was on January 31st 1797). I was on the fence about going, as I'd been unwell, but with a guarantee we could bail at intermission if I was in too much pain, I ventured out to the Austrian Embassy, with thoughts of Salzberg and The Sound of Music.

Wow! The first part of the program were Lieders (German meaning song). A baritone and a pianist. The singer I confess resembled Daffney's boyfriend in that great Billy Wilder film, Some Like It Hot. (That would be Joe E. Brown on the left and Jack Lemmon in drag on the right).

The Austrian Embassy sits on International Court, which is a collection of Embassies, newly built not far from where I used to live in Cleveland Park. The area included embassies for the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Egypt, Israel, Ethiopia and the Austria. Modern and sleek and not very inviting, the large atrium inside was simple but elegant. The ceiling's height afforded space for 5 panels of paintings, related yet distinct. A ribbon of the Austrian flag, red and white, waved and wrinkled and created a sense of wind in bright blue skies and then snowy skies. White foregrounds evoked snow which clearly capped a single Alp on a left side panel, while subtly, over two paintings on the right, appeared a music staff with a treble clef.

As I took in the setting and music and the crowd, the memory of a dream I had had as a girl came to me - an imagined evening such as this, or pretty close to this.

According to the notes, Schubert composed over 600 songs in his 31 years of life. We heard about 10 sung. The program helpfully provided the German lyrics along with the English translations. And the words reminded me of the height of the Romantic movement. (Technically, Schubert bridges the classical period and the romantic period. I thanked my high school, my mother for choosing that high school, for my music history class).

I recognized the melody of Standchen/Serenade and the program noted that this is the best-known serenade in music. But I never knew the words, from a poem by Ludwig Rellstab:

My songs beckon softly
through the night to you;
below in the quiet grove,
Come to me, beloved!

The rustle of slender leaf tips whispers
in the moonlight;
Do not fear the evil spying
of the betrayer, my dear.

Do you hear the nightingales call?
Ah, they beckon to you,
With the sweet sound of their singing
they beckon to you for me.

They understand the heart's longing,
know the pain of love,
They calm each tender heart
with their silver tones.

Let them also stir within your breast,
beloved, hear me!
Trembling I wait for you,
Come, please me!

Reith, a librarian from Georgetown University, quotes Schubert critic and biographer John Reed: "The way the lover's passion swells up at the end of a phrase which echoes teh concluding bars of the strophe, and then declines to a whisper of desire, is as purely sensuous a moment as can be found in all Schubert." Yeah, I liked it.

Another tune I recognized was The Trout, which is actually the 4th movement of a quintet. As the presentation was part of the encore, we were told that the story was of a happy trout, swimming safely and that the waters were deliberately muddied and that in the stir up, the fish was caught. And with that narrative in mind, we listened. Very effective.

The music was very moving, but for me the notes really enriched the evening. Other lyrics that captured my attention, including this: "The only things that change are will and delusion," as I've been discussing with some one I respect whether or not people change.

A rarely performed Octet (in F Major, D803) comprised the second part of the performance and lasted about an hour. In six movements, the strains and phrases lifted and lulled. The time flew as the sounds moved.

I knew the etiquette of refraining from applause between movements, but was unsure of the appropriate response betweens songs. Sometimes the response seemed more informed by the notes than by the musical performance.

I sat right behind Paul Wolfowitz, his head broad and his ears jutted. As I sat there I thought of numerous movies set in the 1940s. Scenes of ladies in forced civility as they socialized with Nazis at concerts of Wagner or other German composers. Nazis, who felt that doing so made them estimable and cultured and refined, while they carried out their crimes. I felt such antipathy toward him, and at times, during break in the music, sometimes even during, his presence distracted me or perhaps my hatred of what he had done distracted me.

During the intermission and after, a group of us speculated if his date was THE girlfriend or not. I noted if it wasn't, he got, as Obama would say, a poor return for investment. But another noted, what relationship could withstand that pressure? The consensus was that his date was not the woman whose appointment he'd made during his tenure at the World Bank partly cost him job (as it was deemed inappropriate).

Gruppe aus der Tartarus/Group from Tararus engaged me. The melancholy melody and the lyrics speaking of pain reverberated with my illness and the despair that sometimes haunts me:

Hark - like the murmuring of the angry sea, like a brook weeping through hallow, rocky gullies,
you can hear over there, deeply muffled, a heavy, toneless groan, extracted with torment!
Pain contorts their faces, despair opens their jaw with curses.
Hallow are their eyes: their gaze rests anxiously on Cocytus' bridge
and they follow Cocytus' sad course with tears.
They ask one another softly with fear whether the end has not yet come!
Eternity whirls above them in circles, breaking Saturn's scythe in two.

I was startled at the conclusion when someone initiated applause. Wolfowitz started it. I read the lyrics in a new light. The notes added, "This is a gloomy hell-like piece of music, reminding one of Michelangelo's 'Last Judgment.' Souls writhing in hell, despairing of ever leaving their terrible fate, is the final answer: eternity!" Later, I looked up Cocytus - it's a Greek word meaning "the river of wailing" and is a river in the mythic underworld. And Saturn's scythe is said to help liberate those suffering in lifeless relationships, which is to say, in hell you're stuck in lifeless relationships.

I found myself contemplating the soul of the man in front of me, the possibility of guilt or remorse. And I thought again of The Sound of Music and of how the family escaped at the end during a Salzberg concert while the Nazi's listened, engaged in the melodies.

10 Reasons Why I Am For Obama (now 11)

A girlfriend picked me up at the airport, who is a Hillary supporter, and asked me to state 5 reasons why I'm for Obama.

HERE ARE 10! Nope 11!

1. Obama is post-identity politics. You will never hear him say, and he has never said - vote for me because I'm a black man. He doesn't say he represents change because he is black. Or even because he's young. When he says race and gender should not be an issue in this campaign, he doesn't contradict that view with assertions that his immutable qualities represent change. (As Hillary did in the New Hampshire debate. She said, "But I think I am an agent of change. I embody change. I think having the first woman president is a huge change -- (applause) -- with consequences across our country and the world." She reiterated this sentiment in the California debate.)

2. Lawrence Tribe, whom I greatly respect, said Obama was one of the two smartest students he ever taught at Harvard Law School.

Lawrence Tribe - who would argue Al Gore's case against George W. Bush before the Supreme Court during the disputed election of 2000 - chose him as his research assistant and later called Obama "one of the two most talented students I've had in thirty-seven years in teaching."
p. 77-79 Hopes and Dreams: The Story of Barack Obama by Steve Dougherty

3. Obama's appeal among Independents and even Republicans means that he has a better shot at getter a working majority (veto-proof and filibuster-proof) in Congress. He does this in a several ways: a. with McCain as the nominee, many in the Republican base will stay home (listen to Limbaugh) - only Hillary as the nominee could motivate the base to the polls. b. Obama appeals to moderates and independents. See polls and endorsements, especially these from purple states - This assessment is born out by the endorsements of many Senators from purple or red states such as Sen. McCaskill (Missouri) and Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (Kansas).

This article from Congressional Quarterly provides a succinct overview of what's at stake in the House and Senate races. In the Senate there are 35 races (usually there's 33, but a few retirements have upped the number). 23 are Republican. 12 are Democrats. All 12 are incumbents. All of the five open races (with no incumbent) are the result of Republicans who have decided not to run for re-election.

The 2006 mid-term election has been a hard lesson in what it means if we don't have the votes in Congress (particularly in the Senate). Obama both brings Independents and Republicans to our side (and down Obama's coattails) and at the same time his candidacy will not rouse the Republican base to unite behind McCain (depressing McCain's coattails). In other words, Hillary will improve McCain's ability to increase voting for Republicans lower down on the ticket because she will motivate the base to get to the polls. Obama not only will not have this effect, he will increase the down draft of the ticket, raising all Democrats at all levels of election up.

This is a unique chance for transformation, not just of the White House but of the Congress as well. And, as is often said, much is at stake. All the determination in the world won't matter if you don't have the votes. Period.

4. Obama's rhetorical skills are immense and not incidental. He understands the need, in a democracy, to use the bully pulpit to move people. He believes words are important. My jaw dropped during the New Hampshire debate on January 5th 2008 as I realized he and Hillary were arguing over the value of words! He argued:

And, you know, so the truth is actually words do inspire. Words do help people get involved. Words do help members of Congress get into power so that they can be part of a coalition to deliver health care reform, to deliver a bold energy policy. Don't discount that power, because when the American people are determined that something is going to happen, then it happens. And if they are disaffected and cynical and fearful and told that it can't be done, then it doesn't. I'm running for president because I want to tell them, yes, we can. And that's why I think they're responding in such large numbers.

He also wrote: "Of course, there are limits to the power of the bully pulpit. Sometimes only the law can fully vindicate our values, particularly when the rights and opportunities of the powerless in our society are at stake." p. 62 The Audacity of Hope.

5. Obama approaches the issues in a collective, productive manner - not us against them. He does not use the Rovean mode of politics of divide and conquer. George Lakoff has a terrific essay I highly recommend at The Huffington Post that frames the differences between Obama and Hillary Clinton. (And it's not policy). One example he highlights: "Hillary talks about "I," I," "I" (the crafter of the policy) and Obama talks about "you" and "we" (the people who demand it and who jointly carry it out)."

6. Obama would increase our soft power in the world, which is what the current Sec. of Defense urges we need more. I've written about how our current Secretary of Defense Gates believes soft power is important here. Andrew Sullivan wrote a cover piece for The Atlantic Monthly in December that I highlighted here, called "Goodbye to All That: Is Iraq Vietnam? Who really won in 2000? Which side are you on in the culture wars? These questions have divided the Baby Boomers and distorted our politics. One candidate could transcend them." I recommend Sullivan's piece. Here's an excerpt:

What does he offer? First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan. Such a re-branding is not trivial—it’s central to an effective war strategy. The war on Islamist terror, after all, is two-pronged: a function of both hard power and soft power. We have seen the potential of hard power in removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. We have also seen its inherent weaknesses in Iraq, and its profound limitations in winning a long war against radical Islam. The next president has to create a sophisticated and supple blend of soft and hard power to isolate the enemy, to fight where necessary, but also to create an ideological template that works to the West’s advantage over the long haul. There is simply no other candidate with the potential of Obama to do this. Which is where his face comes in.

7. Obama does not view facts and truth as relative. For me, this aspect is a generational difference. It encompasses statements from both our baby-boomer presidents ("It depends on what the meaning of is, is" and "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.") It's facile to dismiss one being a lie about sex and another a lie about a war. Regardless of the context, they both betray a casual relationship with objective fact. If one doesn't enable the other, it certainly makes indignation at untruths more difficult to defend.

David Brooks had a great piece that captured another aspect of that generational divide (about how and why Ted Kennedy would be able to speak to young peopletoday :

And he could do it because culture really does have rhythms. The respect for institutions that was prevalent during the early ’60s is prevalent with the young again today. The earnest industriousness that was common then is back today.

For me, Obama represent that return to order, industriousness, objective truth and respect - not just for institutions but government. Remember, it was Bill Clintonwho subscribed to the Reagan's government reduction plan when he uttered, "The era of big government is over." I hated that in 1992 - not just because it was a sell out, but because it subscribed to the idea that government is bad, not worthy of respect.

Why does that matter? Well, if you deride a thing or a person, then you get what you expect. The lack of respect of and value for government has borne out in the incompetent governing that afflicts us all. Including in the use of our taxes. Consider this - tax reduction has only enriched private companies doing work formerly done by employees of our government, including enlisted men. And this companies are not accountable to us, the tax payers. Exhibit A: Jeff Prince, CEO of Blackwater. And don't think that it's only private contractors in Iraq that has cost of us more. It's across the board in all government agencies that are supposed to protect us - whether from poisonous spinach or Chinese toys or collapsing bridges or close calls on runways or drug companies selling untested drugs. On so many fronts, government is so broken because we've bought into the notion that it's big and bad and ugly. Well, it's also necessary.

You get what you expect. And if civil servants don't do it, private companies will do it, for more money and for less accountability.

Obama is changing that view.

8. Obama inspires new people to civic involvement and voting. This is the result of his rhetorical skills but also is exactly what makes him a "game changer." His nomination could change the political landscape. There's even talk of running a Democratic Southern strategy for the first time in decades. Check out this analysis from liberal blog The Daily Kos entitled Super Tuesday: Clinton, Obama and the 50 state strategy. Obama's got field offices in every state going to the polls on Tuesday. That tells people in those states they matter.

9. His last name is not Clinton or Bush. I've voted 5 times in a presidential election and I have never voted in a presidential election when a Bush or Clinton wasn't on the ballot.

Nicholas Kristoff had a good column on this factor "The Dynastic Question" this past week.

And the Washington Post today offers an in depth look at Relative Power, the history of political families in Congress and at the state level. One historian is quoted as follows: "The founders were united in their attitude that political office should not be transmitted from one family or passed down through the generations."

10. Obama was a Constitutional Law professor. Given how the Constitution has been perverted over the last 7 years, the skill, knowledge and acuity of Obama, honed over 10 years on his feet in front of cadre of bright students at the University of Chicago Law School, affords him a necessary perception and understanding of what needs to be fixed and how to cut through opposition.

He understands strict construction, judicial activism, original intent, the 14th and 2nd amendment, all the amendments, all of the articles. He knows the phrases ("unreasonable searches," "checks and balances," "separation of powers" "war powers") deep in context - of the document itself and/or in the case law over two centuries. He knows the sides and arguments up and down and side to side.

That's the guy I want to fix the damage done to our Constitution and appoint jurists to the federal courts, including the Supreme.

11. Obama is able to speak in religious terms and is not afraid of the religious right. See this from Marc Ambinder's piece in the Atlantic Monthly called Teacher and Apprentice (a fascinating piece from the December 2007 issue about Clinton and Obama)

Many Obama friends and advisers believe that the realization he actually could be president first hit Obama on December 1, 2006, which happened to be World AIDS Day. Obama appeared at the megachurch in Orange County, California, run by Rick Warren, the best-selling author of The Purpose Driven Life and an emerging force in national politics. Sam Brownback, the Republican senator from Kansas, spoke first. “Welcome to my house,” he said to Obama, as the crowd laughed. When Obama rose to speak, he replied, “There is one thing I’ve got to say, Sam: This is my house, too. This is God’s house.” Before an audience of socially conservative evangelical Christians, Obama then called for “realism” and advocated the use of condoms to control the spread of AIDS. As the next day’s Orange County Register described it, Obama received a “hearty standing ovation.” Could any other Democrat, Obama wondered, talk to evangelicals about condoms in Africa?

And then this appeared in the Election Central area of the liberal blog, Talking Points Memo, a posting called Obama Cranks Up Appeal to Religious Voters. After quoting extensively from an email sent by Obama to folks who do religious outreach and charity, Greg Sargent notes
"This sort of stuff does give Obama another argument in the primary -- that as a general election candidate he could conceivably do a lot to counter the right-wing smear that the Dems are the "Godless" party."

As someone long disturbed by the coopting and belittling of religious language by the Republican party, I LOVE that Obama is taking the fight to them and raising the level of dialogue. He not only speaks their language; he's not afraid to take it to them and challenge them directly.


So what are your reasons for supporting Obama? (or not?)

Two Big Endorsements for Obama

Today, the LA Times and the Chicago Sun Times both have endorsed Obama.

The former is interesting because the LA Times got out of the business of endorsing Presidents back when the Chandler family still controlled the paper. (see David Haberstam's terrific book, The Powers That Be). On the 20th of January, the paper revealed that they would break their 35 year abstention when they endorsed Richard Nixon in 1972 and told the sordid story that caused their arrest. It concludes with this:

Clinton would be a valuable and competent executive, but Obama matches her in substance and adds something that the nation has been missing far too long -- a sense of aspiration.

The latter is interesting because its one of Obama's home papers and the one that has been riding him the most on his Resko connections. Yet they highlight Obama's judgement in the 1980s when he was quoted in their paper calling on then Mayor Harold Washington about asbestos in public housing, commends his ability to speak to religious people without alienating secularists, and what an Obama presidency could mean to the world.

Hillary got the Denver Post today which matters only because Denver is hosting the Democratic convention.

Who is in Obama's Entourage?

My aunt asked me if I knew who and what Obama would bring with him, if elected. She made the valid point that everyone knows Hillary's advisers - but who exactly is advising Obama?

UPDATE: I found an instructive and informative Chicago Tribune piece highlighted here.

Well, I'm reading his second book - The Audacity of Hope. And with her question in mind, I turned to the acknowledgments. And it's a pretty impressive list - I recognized three right off the bat.

Here's the run down -

Cassandra Butts - met Obama at Harvard Law in the financial aid office. She was a senior advisor to Dick Gephardt where she worked on the 1998 Impeachment as well as the response to the 9/11 attacks while he was Minority Leader. She also formulated Gephardt's universal health care plan for his presidential campaign. She is now a SVP for domestic policy at the liberal think tank group, The Center for American Progress.

Forrest Claypool - is a Cook County Commissioner for the 12th District. In the late 1980s he was Chicago Mayor Daley's chief of staff (Michelle Obama also worked for Daley).

Julius Genachowski - Current CBO of a company, IAC/InterActiveCorp, which owns a bunch of interactive web site including hotels.com, expedia.com, evite.com (Barry Diller is CEO). He serves on the board of a group called "Common Sense Media." Was a former staffer for FCC Commissioner Reed Hundt, a law clerk to both David Souter and William Brennan, an executive with USA Networks. Worked for Charles Schumer (when in the House) on investigating Iran-Contra. Met Obama while on the staff of the Harvard Law Review (Obama was president).

General Scott Gration - This general voted for Bush in 2000 and is now a friend and active support of Obama's. Is the son of missionaries and raised in the Congo, he is fluent in Swahili. He is 32 year veteran of the Air Force and served in many of the hot spots in the Middle East. I highly recommend this Newsweek piece from August 2007.

Those who fall in with the Barack Obama campaign tend to fall hard for the man himself, and none more than Jonathan Scott Gration. A recently retired Air Force major general who voted for George W. Bush in 2000, Gration accompanied Obama on a 15-day tour of Africa last August and was, he says, simply bowled over. When the two traveled to Kenya, the homeland of Obama’s father, the U.S. presidential candidate directly confronted President Mwai Kibaki over corruption.

Newsweek notes that the other two military advisors to Obama are along with Richard Danzig, the former secretary of the Navy during the Clinton administration, and Gen. Merrill McPeak, former Air Force chief of staff.

Robert Fisher - ? (probably not the chess player bobby fisher)

Michael Froman - another Harvard Law classmate and former chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin.

Donald Gips - ?

John Kupper - a partner in David Axelrod and David Plouffe's political public relations firm, AKP&D. He worked for Rep. Lane Evans (D-IL) and Rep. Henry R. Reuss (D-Wis).

Anthony Lake - Probably the best know, Lake was President Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser from 1993-1997. Was nominated to be C.I.A. director in 1997, but nomination was withdrawn due to Republican opposition (The possibilities boggles the mind - if the post had not gone to George Tenet....). He did the first - and most honest - mea culpa on Rwanda (read here).

Susan Rice - A familiar face, she's been on MSNBC a lot advocating for the Obama campaign. She is on leave as a Senior Fellow of Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank. She is a former assistant secretary of state for African Affairs under Clinton (1997-2001). You can read some of her commentary and research on Africa, poverty as a transnational threat and human right here at the Brookings web site. She is also a Rhodes Scholar.

Gene Sperling - Currently the Senior Fellow for Economic Policy and Director of the Center for Universal Education at the Council for Foreign Relations. He was also a former economic advisor to the Kerry campaign and under the Clinton Administration he was a National Economic Adviser and Head of the National Economic Council. See full bio at the Council for Foreign Relations.

Cass Sunstein - His was a name I recognized, probably because he is a contributer editor to The New Republic. Like Obama Sunstein is a Harvard Law School grad who teaches at University of Chicago Law School (he was born in 1954, Obama in 1961). Clerked for Thurgood Marshall. Author of several books including, most interestingly, he Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever (2004).

Jim Wallis - He's another name I knew. In 2005, he gained notoriety for his book, God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It. You've probably seen him on Meet the Press and other news programs. PBS's Frontline interviewed him for their program The Jesus Factor which you can read here.


Can any one fill in the blanks? Have any other background to add?

How JFK Made Obama Presidency, Existence, Possible

You've got to read the latest piece from Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, called Why Caroline Backed Obama. He recounts the specifics that Obama alluded to on Monday when he said, "So it is partly because of their [the Kennedy's] generosity that my father came to this country, and because he did, I stand before you today – inspired by America’s past, filled with hope for America’s future, and determined to do my part in writing our next great chapter."

Alter explains:

One intriguing element of Obama's family history that resonated with Caroline was a long-buried story that was brought to her attention last summer. It drove home for her how history replays itself, how two generations of two families—separated by distance, culture and wealth—can intersect in strange and wonderful ways, and how people have no idea that their good deeds may come back to them someday.

Intriguing hardly describes what comes next. It is unbelievable. I got goosebumps this morning reading out loud to a friend what came next. Find out for yourself and click on the link above.

Gary Wills on the Perils of Bill

This essay by Garry Wills from yesterday's New York Times is worth a read and give helpful historical perspective on why the founders decided to vest executive power in one person (and not, in the Roman mode in a triumvirate). He reminds us of the perils of a dual presidency as borne out by the unaccountable current Vice Presidency and paints a cautionary tale of, as Mitt Romney put it, Bill Clinton "with nothing to do." Wills uses the adjective "energetic" vis-a-vis Bill, twice and it didn't seem to be a good thing in the context Wills provides.

Read it here.

Money Pouring Into Obama - 1/2 Million an hour!

Washington Post reports. That's huge! Folks who bother to give money are going to vote on February 5th. That bodes very well for him.

Now, I'm on the Obama mailing list. At about 25 minutes before his victory speech, I got an email asking for money with one line that was echoed in his speech:

After four great contests in every corner of this country, and another record turnout today, we have the most votes, the most delegates, and the most diverse coalition of Americans we've seen in a long, long time.

And btw, David Gregory "observed" something I didn't. When Hillary came on from Nashville surrounded by black women, Gregory claimed that Obama had been surrounded by white faces. I don't know what he was watching (smokin') but that's not what I saw. I saw a mix. Watch the victory speech yourself.

What Might Have Happened in N.C.

Talking Points Memo highlighted AmericaBlog.com penned by John Avavosis which notes that both Obama and Edwards began to rise at the end of November, suggesting that Hillary did something to piss voters off.

And I think it may be this - Hillary Clinton's interview with Katie Couric on November 26, 2007. You can watch it at that link.

It's the one where this exchange occured:

"If it's not you, how disappointed will you be?" Couric asked.

“Well, it will be me,” she said.

But she said she would stand behind any other Democratic nominee, if it came to that. “We're going to have unified party, behind whoever we nominate.”

Clearly, she has considered the possibility she won't be the nominee?

"No, I haven't," Clinton said.

Wow. Wouldn't it be nice if that was it?

Caroline Kennedy Endorses Barack

You can read it here.

She commends him on his two compelling books (I couldn't agree more). She notes his two decades of public service (which compared to "35 years" doesn't sound like so much like the chump change Hillary would like).

But most important of all, she compares him favorably to her father. The penultimate paragraph says it all.

Bob Herbert Chides Clintons for Rovean Tactics

Bob Herbert of the New York Times, in today's column, assembles a damning portrayal of what the Clinton surrogates have done - specifically Andrew Young and Bob Kerrey. He asserts that the Clintons not only knew what they were doing, but were aware of the corrosive effects and pursued this anyway.

In a line that made me think of Karl Rove, Herbert wrote -

It makes one wonder whether they have any understanding or regard for the corrosive long-term effects — on their party and the nation — of pitting people bitterly and unnecessarily against one another.

A relative suggested to me the other night that Hillary Clinton is not Machiavellian. Machiavellian is defined as: "cunning and unscrupulous: using clever trickery, amoral methods, and expediency to achieve a desired goal, especially in politics."

Well, if the Clinton's behavior this last week isn't Machiavellian, I don't know what is.

Jonathan Alter of Newsweek Suggests Possible Clinton Backlash

In a piece entitled, The Clinton's Patronizing Strategy - The latest attacks on Obama insult voters' intelligence, Alter points out that when Clinton was impeached, he was counting on the intelligence of the American public but that here and now, he seems to be betting against that.

It's worth a read, and an interesting perspective.

He also talks of New Jersey, where he lives (and where I used to) and quotes the admirable mayor of Newark - Cory Booker, an Obama supporter.

Surprise! Bill Clinton is a Liar

Much of the coverage of last night's debate evenly disparages Hilary and Obama for the tone and accusations. But let's be clear that Obama had no choice but to respond as he did.

Not only have the Clintons repeatedly injected race into to this race, the last week Bill Clinton has been out right lying. And as usual (as with Bush), most of the press is lying down and rolling over and acting as stenographers.

But here's is a Washington Post blog, Fact Checker, which lays out the facts and gives the Clinotns 2 Pinocchios which signifies "Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people."

Do we really want to go back to when the Democrats were known as having a causal relationship with the truth? (what the meaning of is, is)

Obama wants to do things differently. But, as Kerry learned when he was swiftboated, you can't let lies go unanswered. Obama had NO CHOICE but to defend himself. He is NOT responsible for the tone.

Even Sen. Edward Kennedy and Rep. Rahm Emmanuel have told Bill in "heated conversations" to pipe down. See Jonathon Alter's piece in Newsweek.

So think on this -

1. The Clintons are behaving like the worst element of the Republicans by using swiftboating attacks.
2. If Hillary is our nominee, that would mean that since 1988 - for 20 years and beyond - we would have a Bush or Clinton in the White House. We are not a monarchy. To avoid just this type of corruption, we fought a revolution.

Diane Rehm Show Does Hour on Fibromyalgia

The Diane Rehm show did a whole hour on Fibromyalgia on Tuesday, the day after the New York Times article appeared.

One of the guests included Alex Berenson, the reporter who wrote the piece who admitted is beat is covering the drug industry. He is not a doctor or even a health reporter. He covers the pharmaceutical market. And he admitted that the medical establishment agrees fibromyalgia exists.

And he revealed what a jerk he really is. Among the amazing things he uttered were -

• "a lot of doctors are skeptical' but won't talk about their skepticism (this has no basis in fact; see this post.)
• "skepticism is natural because it affects a specific population - middle age women."
• "They are difficult to deal with and lots of doctors don't like them."

He was asked if he was surprised about the reaction before he wrote the story as he investigated and instead he characterized the reaction after - that the "issue" provokes a lot of vehemence" from the patients "whereas doctors have been saying great job for saying what we all know is true."

Then he added, "by the way I quoted people on the other side." Yeah right - two and then he implied that they weren't impartial or believable.

And then he said the driver of the diagnosis is disability!

But - if you listen - be sure to get to minute 34 - at that point a Dr. Charles Argoff called in from Albany College where he is a professor and neurologist as well as director of the pain program. He said he was dismayed by the article. There should be no doubt. There have been "4,500 scientific articles" and that fibromyalgia is not to be doubted as there is a "great deal of rooting in basic science." He granted its difficult to treat, but indicated that's because of what the doctors and scientific community do not yet understand. He was asked how he accounted for the skepticism of some doctors, and he responded that he'd never spoken to any of them and that frankly, "I don't understand it."

His tone of outrage was comforting.

You can listen to the 46 minute discussion and see who else was on, by clicking here.

National Fibromyalgia Association's Statement

The National Fibromyalgia Association responds as well -

the article presents outdated opinions and neglects to discuss the research advances of the last decade and instead focuses on the opinions of a few medical outsiders who still do not believe in the legitimacy of fibromyalgia. By omitting the groundbreaking research and scientific evidence gained over the past 20 years by institutions such as Johns Hopkins University, University of Michigan, the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration, the article gives a slanted and unrealistic perspective.

They also note -

Our 2007 research survey findings showed that 81% of physicians agree that fibromyalgia is a common, chronic central pain disorder that can cause intense suffering for patients. And instead of dismissing the effect fibromyalgia can have on a person's life, the medical community has shown that fibromyalgia can damage health-related quality of life even more than rheumatoid arthritis and advanced cancer.

Read the full statement here. They also ask for those who care about people who have this disease to please write the New York Times.

ABC News Offers a More Balanced Report

The piece begins:
"Doctors agree that the best way to deal with fibromyalgia..."

which automatically puts this news report at a more realistic level than the New York Times.

See or read the fully report here.

American Pain Association Responds

The American Pain Association responds in this statement.

They note that the front page New York Times piece failed to mention, namely that the American Medical Association, the National Institutes of Health as well as the American College of Rheumatology's.

They correctly note that the article -

• "belittles the reality of people suffering from pain."
• "demonstrates not only a lack of understanding of the human response to pain, but also a serious lack of human compassion..."
• "further stigmatizes"

Thank you American Pain Association

Bill Moyers to Discuss Bush Middle East Trip with Craig Unger

Bill Moyer's Journal will features what will surely be an intriguing discussion about the implications of George Bush's visit to the Middle East. Maureen Dowd wrote of this in Faith Freedom and Bling in the Middle East and so did Bob Cesca of The Huffington Post "President Bush Shouldn't Play with Sharp Objects."

From the program description:

Bill Moyers sits down with journalist Craig Unger, contributing editor of VANITY FAIR and author of the bestselling House of Bush, House of Saud and, most recently, The Fall of the House of Bush, who offers analysis on President Bush’s recent trip to the Middle East.

Check your local listings, but its sure to be good.

Huffington Post Points Out Hillary's Funny Math

Ari Emanuel FINALLY points out the inconsistency of Hillary's constant claim of 35 years of experience and evaluates again reality and the double standard in how she characterizes Obama's life experience.

He concludes:

In the now immortal words of your husband: Give me a break.

I know you are good person who is devoted to public service. But that doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to not distort your record. And to not distort the record of your opponent.

Your 35 years talking point just doesn't add up.

Read the full post and background here.

Co-Founder of National Fibromyalgia Association Writes

Some of you may have noted that one of the letters printed yesterday by the New York Times was by Lynne Matallana, the president of the National Fibroymyalgia Association, who was quoted in the article (and pictured on the front page).

I cited one of the co-founders, Karen Lee Richards. And then last night she wrote me. (As I told her, I felt like a superstar has written and acknowledged a commoner). And she shared with me her post on Monday's article. She wrote well (and more succinctly than I) and revealed to me something I did not know:

"Not surprisingly, the two physicians he quotes who do not believe FM is a real illness are Dr. Frederick and Dr. George Ehrlich. Anytime the validity of FM is questioned, these two gentleman can be found in the forefront."

I encourage you to read the full post here.

Hillary Called to Task by Editorial Board of New York Times

The editorial board of the New York Times lays the flap over race firmly in the lap of where it belongs - on Hillary Clinton.

Read "Race and Politics" here.

Letters to New York Times on Fibromyalgia Article

The printed letters in today’s edition of the New York Times address the piece on fibromyalgia on Monday.

For me personally, the letter from Benjamin Natelson, director of the Pain and Fatigue Study Center at UMDNJ was especially meaningful as that was where I was finally diagnosed on August 9, 2001 after 18 months of confusion and deteriorating health. And I stayed in New Jersey for 2 years to work with them to improve my health and ability to cope, participated in a study there, and I am still in touch with them. They are good, intelligent people working very hard, and I’m very grateful for their work too.

My favorite paragraph:

Would that it were true that fibromyalgia patients “obsess over aches that other people simply tolerate”; in truth, they suffer from pain other people can scarcely imagine. To imply, as the article does, that doctors who advocate on behalf of these patients are somehow “in the pocket” of the pharmaceutical industry is to betray a stunning degree of cynicism, and of callow disregard for the real lives and deep suffering of millions of human beings.

Read all of them here.

UPDATE: Karen Lee Richards wrote me and about the New York Times. See post here.

Bad News in Michigan For Hillary

As I noted on Monday in this post, Michigan's Detroit News said it would be bad news for Hillary if she drew less than 60%. And guess what - Hillary pulled 55.4% and uncommitted got 39.9%.

Tom Edsall over at The Huffington Post digs deeper and looks at the exit polls and highlights other troubling indicators.

So, if you're considering electability, ponder that.

Could BET President's Remarks Be Divorce Acrimony?

His ex-wife supports Obama.

This Washington Post reports on how close Johnson is to the Clintons and suggests why the Clintons refused to distance themselves from Johnsons' despicable remarks. And he doesn't back off from his remarks.

Of note, Johnson met the Clintons at the home of Marion Wright Edelman. Edelman wrote a glowing blurb for Obama's first book: "Perceptive and wise, this book will tell you something about yourself whether you are black or white."

You can sense the Clinton campaigns' frustration. Johnson again:

"This is a fight between who's going to control the liberal soul of the party," Johnson said. "The people who don't like the Clintons have found the Clintons' worst nightmare -- a very dynamic, talented black man to run up against them."

Shame on him and shame on the Clintons. Read the whole thing.

New York Times on Fibromyalgia is Sloppy, Biased & Callous

Yesterday, on the front page, the New York Times printed an article entitled: "Drug Approved. Is Disease Real?" And the piece reports that Fibromyalgia is not a real disease and only been constructed to profit drug company profits.

I'm not going to provide a link to the cite because doing so increases its presence and visibility on the web, and this report should be buried not highlighted. Regrettably, it's also the top of 10 most emailed articles at nytimes.com.

If you know someone who has this disease, be careful about sending it along. Without an accompanying message of dispute (my uncle likened it to those who believe homosexuality can be cured), you could imply that you agree and that would be hurtful to anyone who is afflicted with Fibromyalgia.

First - I accept two premises:
1) drug companies want to sell drugs and in doing so, sometimes use questionable practices
2) there is a dispute about this disease

I'm not against debate and critical analysis. The definition of liberalism is to engage in opposing ideas. And that's a helpful process because debate provides definition and clarity. And that's all for the good.

What disturbs me is sloppy, biased, callous reporting. The New York Times (despite Judy Miller's best efforts) still has an imprinter of validity and authority so that makes this report even more reprehensible.

I have 6 points in response.

ONE: The piece lacks perspective.
Even the piece opening is not fair:

Fibromyalgia is a real disease. Or so says Pfizer in a new television advertising campaign for Lyrica, the first medicine approved to treat the pain condition, whose very existence is questioned by some doctors.

And so says the CDC, the FDA, Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins, and - oh yeah – The New York Times Health Guide. Further, Jane Brody, the New York Times' long time Health reporter has twice written about Fibromyalgia - once in 1989 (89 - that wasn't a typo) and once in 2000, entitled - get this - Fibromyalgia: Real Illness, Real Answers.

So Pfizer (finally) says so too. Again, they’re not the only ones – in fact Pfizer is late to the issue.

Just because George Bush asserts a fact doesn’t make it, ipso facto, a lie.

Likewise, just because a drug company validates a disease doesn’t make it not a disease.

TWO: The piece does not fully report the facts and in its omissions leads the reader to inaccurate conclusions.
"No biological tests exists to diagnose fibromyalgia." They should have added - "yet."

Readers could reasonably conclude that if no biological test exists that there is no biological basis for the belief that this disease is real. That is NOT true.

See this excerpt from the Arthritis Center of Johns Hopkins (a reputable authority, and with cites to respected medical journals):

With regard to nervous system function, it is thought that persons with FM experience pain amplification due to abnormal sensory processing in the central nervous system. This is supported by studies showing multiple physiological abnormalities in persons with FM, including: increased levels of substance P in the spinal cord, low levels of blood flow to the thalamus region of the brain, low levels of serotonin and tryptophan and abnormalities in cytokine function^{ref 5}.

It has also been suggested that FM may relate to an abnormality in deep sleep. That is, abnormal brain waveforms have been found in deep sleep in many persons with FM. Moreover, tender points can be produced in normal volunteers by depriving them of deep sleep for a few days. By the same token, levels of growth hormone, important in maintaining good muscle and other soft tissue health, and produced almost exclusively during deep sleep, have been found to be low in persons with FM^{ref 3}.

Please read the whole link here. Please.

THREE: The piece did not present a balanced dispute.
Intelligent, adjunct professors and doctors fall on both sides. The article cites these doctors:

• "These people live under a cloud. And the more they seem to be around the medical establishment, the sicker they get." Dr. Nortin Hadler (see SIX below)
  
• “Some of us in those days thought that we had actually identified a disease, which this clearly is not. To make people ill, to give them an illness, was the wrong thing." Dr. Frederick Wolfe who now "considers the condition a physical response to stress, depression, and economic and social anxiety." (Even if this is true - that FM is a physical response to stress - it's still a physical response that needs to be treated. Plus see FOUR below)
  
• “Most people ‘manage to get through life with some vicissitudes, but we adapt. People with fibromyalgia do not adapt.” Dr. George Ehrlich. (This assertion is so outrageous, I can't respond.)
  

The piece cites one doctor, Dr. Daniel Clauw, on the other side and doesn’t explain fully his groundbreaking work on the disease using functional MRIs. See this Newsweek piece from May 19th, 2003, Fibromyalgia: Not All in Your Head, the subtitle of which was "Thanks to brain scan technology, this 'imaginary' illness ailment of 6 million people is proving to be very real."

In the New York Times, Clauw is quoted, “What’s going to happen with fibromyalgia is going to be the exact thing that happened to depression with Prozac. These are legitimate problems that need treatments.” An unfortunate comparison, I grant that. Could he not have compared what was going to happen now that fibromyalgia had a drug approved for treatment to exactly what happened to erectile dysfunction with Viagra or Cialis or Levitra? That would have gotten more respect!

FOUR: Wolfe's view is not new or news.
Wolfe's change of heart is one emphasis of the piece, but the fact that his skepticism is not new is concealed. Ten years ago he wrote a piece entitled, The Fibromyalgia Problem. (Journal of Rheumatology 1997;27(7):1247-49.) Also this cite from the Annuals of Rheumatic Diseases.

And then here he is five years ago in an interview -

Dr. Bob: Now, frequently if a doctor hears a patient say, "I ache all over" and they get blood work and the blood work is normal, do they tend to say this is a psychological problem and do a disservice to this patient or what's the deal?

Dr. Wolfe: Well, doctors are human too. I hate to inform you, but they are.

Dr. Bob: We have our frailties.

Dr. Wolfe: And if you can't find anything, then your first impulse might be to say, "you're kinda crazy." These patients are not crazy. Many of them are full-time workers who are going to work. They do not produce as well because they hurt but they are very active people. They're young mothers. They are men in positions of stress in their job, women in stress. So, it's not like you can say these people are crazy sitting in a corner.

Yes, doctors are human, with all that implies. For full text of interview, click here.

My point is only that the New York Times writes as if Wolfe's skepticism and change of view is new and newsworthy. In fact, it is not.

Further and more importantly, Wolfe is credited as "the lead author of the 1990 paper that first defined the diagnostic guidelines for fibromyalgia." And neglects to mention that he was only one of 10 authors. For more see this National Institutes of Health web site link.

To my knowledge, none of the other authors have similarly disavowed their work.

FIVE: The piece unfairly undermines those cited who assert the disease is real.
Clauw's credibility is undermined by noting he has consulted with 3 drug companies. It's fair to mention that, but it's not put in context. No other doctor - maybe one who has not consulted with drug companies, is cited and it’s not because they don’t exist – which is the implication.

The only other person to provide the “token” other view is the head of the National Fibromyalgia Association which is a patient advocacy group “that receives some of its financing from drug companies.” Again, the implication is that her view is biased and poisoned by the money her organization accepts. But 2 important facts were omitted.

1. NFA joined forces with Pfizer only lately and got Pfizer to first run public service announcements to simply raise awareness. I believe this may have been the first time this was done by a drug company. As Karen Lee Richards, a co-founder of NFA, wrote in this post at ChronicPainConnection.com:
   

The National Fibromyalgia Association and Pfizer…have partnered on an educational campaign to raise awareness about fibromyalgia. The TV spot is well done and refers you to the Web site, www.fibrohope.org....It's been less than three weeks since the FDA approved Lyrica as the first drug to treat fibromyalgia and already the media campaign has begun. I am pleased that Pfizer chose to begin not with ads for Lyrica, but with an educational campaign run by a nonprofit FM organization. The only way you could even tell that Pfizer was involved was a small logo placed at the very end where the Web site information was given.

I daresay it won't be long, though, until we're seeing Lyrica advertisements both on television and in the print media. While I'm not particularly a big fan of drug ads, these will serve a purpose far beyond making more money for a large pharmaceutical company. They will help give fibromyalgia the widespread legitimacy we have worked toward for so many years.

It's interesting (and a little sad) that--even though fibromyalgia has been recognized for several years by the American Medical Association, the American College of Rheumatologists, the Social Security Administration, and the Veterans Administration--it's probably going to be a profit potential for the pharmaceutical industry that really puts it on the medical map. I can only hope this new media exposure will finally bring still-skeptical medical professionals around.

I do agree with our medical expert Dr. Borigini, who noted in his recent SharePost that Lyrica is not right for every fibromyalgia patient. Although I'm happy about any treatment that helps even a few people live with less pain, my excitement about Lyrica's approval exists on a whole different level. In addition to giving long-deserved attention to fibromyalgia, it will open the door to the approval of even more treatment options. There are currently at least two additional fibromyalgia drugs waiting in the wings for FDA approval. And as other pharmaceutical companies see that treating fibromyalgia can be profitable for them, hopefully they will increase their FM research budgets. (emphasis added)

2. NFA advisory board includes nearly 50 medical professionals. Patients founded NFA 11 years ago - in 1997 - and the organization has done essential and important work - including an informative web site, a magazine, and 6 international conferences that provided a necessary forum for exchange of medical research. They've done this for a decade before any drug companies paid any attention (or money) at all.

I recommend you view the Public Service Announcement at the Fibrohope.org web site here. Please.

SIX: The serious harm done by such a sloppy, unbalanced, front page report, is immeasurable.
The explicit message of the New York Times piece is that people diagnosed with fibromyalgia are

• stubborn - not willing to adapt,
• overweight (lazy),
• intolerant - obsessing "over aches that other people simply tolerate"

The implicit message is that the disease is not only not real, but made up for drug companies to nefariously profit. The piece concludes with Wolfe quoted as saying the companies are "going to make a fortune."

So what? So long as they and their competitors invest and research the disease as well, fine by me. I pray every day for better treatment and yearn for a cure.

Such pieces as the New York Times published yesterday are seriously detrimental. CFIDS & Fibromyalgia Self-Help's web site features an article by Lisa Lorden Myers entitled Killing Me Softly : FM/CFS & Suicide. Some pertinent parts:

• "An illness like fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue syndrome, which is often doubted or neglected by the medical community, the public, and sometimes by family and friends, can present unique problems. Patients with FM/CFS can become victims of isolation and despair."
• "Patients with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome have an exquisite understanding of the pain and emotional anguish, associated with having a poorly understood, incurable disease. 'When you start hearing there is no hope, no treatment, and no cure over and over, you lose your will to fight,' wrote Jan Murphy in a eulogy read at her funeral."
• "A recent report published by Action for ME, a UK non-profit organization [ME is the UK name for CFS], revealed that 51% of survey respondents have felt suicidal as a result of their illness. Those with the most severe cases of the illness and who received delayed diagnosis and management were most likely to have considered suicide."

I just wish the New York Times could have added to the understanding rather than creating more misunderstanding. And I deeply hope that such sloppy reports don't cause further isolation or mental anguish or add to the despair and increase the likelihood of suicides.

Or keep people who are likewise afflicted from seeking medical care.

Contrary to what was reported, the sooner and faster medical invention occurs, the better the outcome. (see this 2004 abstract funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of NIH by Carol S. Burckhardt, Ph.D. , which concludes: "Preliminary findings suggest that early intervention to assist newly diagnosed young women might lead to better outcomes in health status and quality of life.") Not a cure, but a better resilience and quality of life.

As a good friend wrote to me yesterday:

The last thing a person needs in this situation is lack of support...And the converse--loving, caring unconditional support--can go such a long way toward aiding a person's recovery.

(Thanks Shirley) I am grateful - beyond grateful - for the support of my many friends. They have helped me cope and endure. Myers also quotes Martha Ainsworth who runs a non-profit organization dedicated to suicide prevention, "Suicide happens when pain exceeds resources for coping with pain."

WHAT CAN YOU DO?
I ask if any of you are as disappointed and concerned as I am about this piece and what it signifies as to the state of editorial standards, I encourage you to write to the New York Times. (And I thank Christina for this suggestion of soliciting you to act and state your views as readers of the newspaper.)

To reach the Public Editor, Bryon Calame, who represents the readers, you may
E-mail: public@nytimes.com
Phone: (212) 556-7652
Address: Public Editor, The New York Times, 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10018

To voice your opinion to the editor you may do so by
E-mail: letters@nytimes.com
Fax: (212)556-3622.
Address: Letters to the Editor, The New York Times, 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10018

Regarding only letters to the editor (the second address), they advise: "Letters for publication should be no longer than 150 words, must refer to an article that has appeared within the last seven days, and must include the writer's address and phone numbers. No attachments, please."

THANK YOU FOR READING THIS BLOG ENTRY, on this matter that has affected all aspects of my life. If hiring Bill Kristol to opine on the editorial pages wasn't enough for canceling my subscription, this irresponsible report is.

Cassandra

UPDATE: The New York Times printed letters on Thursday the 17th. Read my post about that here.

UPDATE TWO: Karen Lee Richards wrote me and about the New York Times. See post here.

Why Michigan Matters To Democrats

Democratic voters can also go vote tomorrow in Michigan's primary - but it doesn't count. Except for perception. That's why Hillary's campaign is struggling to ensure that she's not beaten by "uncommitted."

Clinton is the only leading Democratic candidate on the ballot in Michigan. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards withdrew from the race because Michigan violated national party rules by scheduling an early primary. Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich is the only other active candidate on the ballot.

While Clinton is virtually assured a win, supporters worry that getting many "uncommitted" votes would embarrass her. Some pollsters have suggested she will look bad if she draws less than 60 percent in a race against practically no one.

For more see this report in the Detroit News.

What Yeast Did for Hillary in NH

This Congressional Quarterly piece chalks up Hillary's New Hampshire win to the work and money of Emily's List. Emily's List is not named after some woman named Emily; it stands for "early money is like yeast."

It also reviews the role of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) (The Nevada chapter of the NEA - "National Education Association" is now shamelessly suing to disenfranchise the voters of the Culinary Union that endorsed Obama) and the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) whose staff actions in Iowa caused the Executive Board to write a scathing letter. For more click here.

CQ also talks of the delegate race (as opposed to counting primary wins).