Fox News: equal opportunity annoyer

Not to be outdone by the Obama interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News, Hillary Clinton sat down with Bill O’Reilly for an interview that’s being aired on prime time.  Liberal pundits have to be furious that the two remaining Democrat candidates are appearing on Fox News despite the pundits’ cries that doing so would legitimize Fox News.

I guess Fox News is legit.  Sorry about your luck, MoveOn.

Guess who else is fuming about Hillary appearing on O’Reilly?  Dennis Miller.  Dick Morris.  Essentially, there are some Republican-leaning pundits who are upset that Hillary Clinton is helping her nomination chances by appearing on Fox News.

Maybe Fox News is fair and balanced after all, because liberals aren’t the only ones who are displeased.

DJW has a health care plan

Hillary Clinton has a health care plan. Barack Obama has a health care plan. John McCain will be visiting Cuyahoga County tomorrow to tout his health care plan. AND DJW, THE BUCKEYE RINO, HAS A HEALTH CARE PLAN! Can we vote Daniel Jack Williamson as a write-in for U.S. President?

Actually, this was my take on health care when I was running for state rep back in 2004, so reprising this demonstrates my commitment to recycling.

The basic premise of the DJW health care plan is that the health care insurers do not operate within a competitive marketplace. They enjoy captive markets, so consumers get screwed. Campaign contributions from PAC’s helped get legislation passed over the past generations to shield health care insurers from fierce competition. So, the DJW health care plan calls for drastic marketplace reforms.

Let’s first assess some of the common problems we, the consumers, face.

The rising costs of providing health benefits has private employers asking employees to contribute more. Government budgets are also being thrown out of whack because health care coverage for public sector employees has also become more expensive. The state’s Medicaid costs are increasing dramatically, too.

However, HMO’s seem to be doing quite well. They have lavish headquarters offices and pay for lots of advertising. Who are they advertising to? Our HMO choices are limited by our employers. It seems they have a lot of extra cash to dispose of. Why can’t they reduce our premiums with all that cash they have?

They keep their expenses to a minimum, which you can tell by trying to get in contact with a real person when you call, but you have to weave your way through complicated phone menus first. If you’ve seen the help wanted ads, these HMO’s don’t pay their customer service representatives very much money. They have a whole bunch of rules you must follow in order to guarantee that they will pay your medical bills. If you must appeal because they denied a claim, you will have to jump through lots of hoops and cut a lot of red tape. Physicians often get reimbursed much later than service is rendered. I can’t count the times that the physicians have tried to bill me directly because they didn’t see the money coming through the pipeline from the HMO, forcing me to call the HMO, weave through phone menus, and wait on hold a long time before I can talk with someone to find out what happened (or didn’t) on their end. This long wait for payment, along with very stingy reimbursement rates has caused a lot of physicians to drop out of many HMO networks. I have talked to many who have said that they are having trouble finding doctors in their HMO network anymore.

The behavior of the HMO’s reminds me of SBC and its predecessor, Ameritech. This phone utility has had fines levied against it by PUCO for poor service, most notably late repairs and especially late installations. One time I bought a new house in the Columbus area and I had to wait for over a month for installation by Ameritech. Calling them constantly from pay phones to try to reach them was annoying, and I wasn’t getting anywhere with them when I did manage to get a real person on the line. At the time I was moving in, I had started working for Ameritech selling cable television subscriptions for them because they had just received permission to compete with Time Warner. My boss was so annoyed that she could not reach me at my home phone. I told her it was the fault of the company we both worked for! Luckily, after training, we were provided with cell phones so that she had a way to contact me. We were not well paid. I eventually left Ameritech. Ameritech had a huge advertising budget pushing local phone service. Why? Why, when there was no other local phone company to compete with them, did they spend so much on advertising? Ameritech had a huge regional headquarters in Columbus, comprising two neighboring skyscrapers joined by skywalk over the alley that ran in between them. Much of the office space was vacant. When you consider that much of the customer service representative work was done at another regional headquarters in Indianapolis, or out of the corporate headquarters in Naperville, Illinois, it seemed likely that the landscape of the Midwest was dotted with these white elephant Ameritech facilities. Our installation service in cable TV was just about as bad as telephone installation. I didn’t get paid my commissions until the new customers were installed, and I lost a lot of commissions because Ameritech was having to cancel and reschedule installations to the point that the potential customers no longer wanted to hook up with us. When the company vice president over cable operations paid us a visit, and I spoke up to complain, I soon realized that the company wasn’t going to add any more installers to their staff. On the phone side, their lousy service was one of the factors that started the trend toward abandoning land lines in favor of cellular phones. Then there was the bill. They would automatically add new features to your phone service so they could jack up your local bill. Sometimes you could save by having some features removed, but sometimes they didn’t give you that option.

The problem with utilities? If they don’t enjoy an outright monopoly, they have very few competitors. The problem with HMO’s? Same thing. They treat you that way and make millions because they can get away with it. We are a captive market. If your employer offers more than one plan, they keep you captive by only having enrollment periods once per year. If you switch jobs to get better health benefits, you will usually encounter a waiting period before you qualify for coverage, and even then there are exclusions for pre-existing conditions.

The solution? Marketplace reforms that allow for more fluid movement of customers from one HMO to another. It should be like shopping for auto insurance: Find the service you want at the best price. They will have to work harder to attract and keep customers. The actuaries will have to factor in smaller profit margins when determining rates in order to compete with rivals. HMO’s would have to be more timely in reimbursing physicians because pleasing physicians will allow the HMO’s to enjoy a larger provider network, which would be a key selling point in enrolling patients. Government would not have to bombard HMO’s with mandates on what conditions must be covered because HMO’s would want to have a more full array of plans to aid them in enticing more people to enroll. Best of all, when patients call their HMO’s, they will likely reach a real person instead of a menu, there won’t be so much red tape to get claims paid, and it will become more rare to have to file an appeal due to a medical procedure being denied coverage, because HMO’s will want to establish reputations for providing great customer service.

The considerations that we must take into account in order to make shopping for health insurance like shopping for car insurance are primarily: 1) adverse selection, where the people most likely to enroll in an insurance plan are those who are most likely to need medical treatment right away; 2) the law of large numbers that helps mitigate against adverse selection by averaging in healthier populations with those not as healthy; 3) a mechanism that makes enrollment in all health-insuring corporations available to all workers regardless of employer; 4) a mechanism that allows consumers to transfer from one insurer to another as easily as transferring money from one bank account to another, or at least as easily as selling shares of a stock on Wall Street to buy shares of another stock on Wall Street; and 5) the administrative costs to insurers that accompany customer turnover.

Just as car insurers charge higher premiums for high-risk drivers, adverse selection can be dealt with in much the same way, that is, those with certain health claim histories would have to shop around among higher-risk policies. However, the more successful an insurer can become at attracting a large market share, the more the law of large numbers will help keep the premiums low. The law of large numbers is what makes group coverage premiums so much more attractive than individual coverage premiums. Each insurer would treat all enrollees in the same plan as a large group instead of a bunch of individuals. If all employers set aside the health benefit dollars into a special account (instead of contracting with an insurer of the employer’s choice) that can only pay out to insurers (and thus remain tax-free dollars), the premium can be automatically debited from the account on a pro-rated daily basis, allowing for the change to a different insurer on any day the employee desires. The employee can also deposit funds from out-of-pocket into this special account in order to make up the difference for insurance costs beyond what the employer provides. These deposits would also be tax-free. If an employee’s health coverage costs less than the benefit dollars in the account, the account could earn tax-free interest as a hedge against inflation and could be stockpiled for future years when the employee is more likely to need higher-risk insurance that costs more due to an increase in age and other risk factors. If an employee’s chosen coverage costs more than the benefit dollars that the employer provides, that will determine the amount of the employee contribution to the health plan. To avoid churn and cover administrative costs, set transaction fees will be debited from the special account by the discontinued policy insurer and the new policy insurer, much like a stock brokerage fee (but more affordable). If there is not enough in the account to cover the transaction fees and the first day’s premium under the new policy, the employee would not be able to change coverage at that time. If the payment of the health insurance premium goes unpaid for 30 days or lags behind schedule for 90 days without ever being brought up to current in the 90-day period, coverage would lapse, and the employee risks being subject to exclusions for pre-existing conditions, and a physical examination that could result in being placed into a higher-risk category before being permitted to enroll in a health plan again. Benefit dollars flowing into the special account after the lapse in coverage could continue to be debited by the discontinued policy insurer until the premium for the time up to the date of the lapsed coverage is paid in full along with the discontinuation transaction fee. If the employee has not yet enrolled in a new plan, but the discontinued policy insurer is paid in full, then benefit dollars flowing into the special account will accumulate until enrollment with a new insurer starts the debiting process again. Because of modern technology that allows for very cheap electronic transfers, it is not anticipated that daily depositing by employers or daily debiting by insurers will be the cause of prohibitive administrative costs, but if employees and employers agree to quarterly or monthly or weekly deposits, that would be an option that could be set up when the special account is created for that employee. Likewise, if insurers want to add incentives to consumers to enroll in a plan that debits weekly, monthly, or quarterly, that would be permitted. Pro-rated adjustments would have to be made, however, if there is a change in employer or insurer. Those with two jobs could have benefit dollars deposited in the same special account. Families could have benefit dollars from all earners deposited in the same special account. Some members of a family may be enrolled in a different plan than others in the family, and more than one insurer would be able to debit the special account. If there is no survivorship provisions, however, the special account would not constitute an inheritable estate, since benefit dollars are tax-free and are only withdrawn by insurers. Those who are self-employed or financially independent can create special accounts as well, to make tax-free deposits for health coverage at group plan rates rather than individual plan rates.

Insurers will still be able to take advantage of re-insurance for stop-loss coverage to keep costs down, as they always have before.

I am leary of government-sponsored, single-payer, universal health care proposals. What would be the mechanism for holding down costs? We would likely need a flood of new taxes to pay for it. Universal coverage would be a nice goal to achieve, and I am open to public debate on how we can best achieve it, but I do not believe the solutions lie within the public sector.

Medicaid is a government sponsored, single-payer health program. There is no mechanism that holds down those costs. Nursing home operators appear to be well connected to their state legislators and are able to negotiate ever increasing Medicaid reimbursement rates for nursing home costs. Many Medicaid recipients in nursing homes do not even require nursing home care. Nursing homes are expensive because of the costs of medical attention and nursing care. However, many are healthy enough not to need nursing care, but because of advancing age, are too feeble to bathe or dress themselves. All they really need is a personal care attendant to fill this role, not a nurse. This kind of help is available with in-home assisted care and assisted living facilities. These are cheaper than nursing homes. However, Medicaid is not designed to help with in-home care or assisted living. Medicaid is for medical and nurse services for the indigent. The state-sponsored PASSPORT program to assist with in-home care is a small program that is constantly operating at full capacity. There are few slots to accomodate more persons at the present time. So, since many cannot participate in PASSPORT because they have already reached capacity, a huge number of seniors are liquidating their assets in order to qualify for Medicaid, which is only paid to nursing homes. So, into the nursing home they go at high expense to the taxpayer whether the patient is in need of nursing care or not. The private sector, however, offers long-term care insurance that does provide benefits for in-home care, assisted living, or nursing home care, depending on the physical condition of the insured. If many many more people had long-term care insurance, they could possibly enjoy life a little more by living outside of a nursing home while holding on to their estate with all its assets. Perhaps if the state spurred the insurance industry to promote long-term care insurance through public service announcements, we could prompt more Ohioans to obtain this coverage and help save the state oodles and oodles of money. Plus, with a competitive marketplace to help hold down health costs, the state may be in a stronger position when negotiating costs for Medicaid.

Health care reform measures that my platform calls for would also need action from Congress to implement, because we would need to change the medical expense insurance marketplace on the national level. However, states are often the incubating laboratories of national programs, as we saw with welfare reform. Ohio can probably get the green light to pilot a few of these proposals so that Congress can assess the feasibility of implementing the whole plan. Just because this is a huge undertaking doesn’t mean we shouldn’t press forward. I think Clinton, Obama, McCain, and especially DJW, all realize that the time has arrived when we need to totally revamp our health care system.

In Barrett’s wake: Heydinger makes sense

The Morning Journal reports that ODP Chair Chris Redfern has tossed two more names into the mix among potential Democrat replacements for Matt Barrett as state representative for the House 58th District.  I’ve weighed in with my assessment of the three names already bandied about.  Redfern also says “All Democratic elected officials will be possibilities.”  I still think GOP candidate and former Huron County Commissioner Terry Boose wins in November.

Of current officeholders, Redfern put forward the name of Huron County Commissioner Mike Adelman.  Like Huron County Auditor Roland Tkach, Adelman was elected during the Democrat high tide of 2006.  If I were Adelman, I would think retaining the Commissioner position would be more appealing than the state rep job that might last only until January considering the long odds the Dems have of retaining the seat.  I previously noted the same about Tkach, who was reported in yesterday’s Morning Journal as not being interested in the state rep job.  As reported in the Norwalk Reflector, Mike Adelman said, “At this point in time, I don’t recall expressing any interest in the position.”

If Redfern is hoping for a current officeholder, I think perhaps he should be looking at village mayors, municipal council members, school board members, and township trustees.  For those officeholders, the state rep job, even if just until January, would heighten name recognition for those aspiring to jump to a full-time political career.  Nevertheless, the Norwalk Reflector also reports that Norwalk City Councilpersons Dwight Tkach and Chris Mushett are not interested in the job, as well as confirming that Norwalk Mayor Sue Lesch is not interested, either.

Meanwhile, former officeholders make more sense as possible replacements to Barrett.  They enjoy name recognition, and they don’t have to vacate a secure position like current officeholders must do if accepting the state rep job.

Along that vein, the second name that Redfern put forward was that of former Huron County juvenile court judge Thomas Heydinger.  Not only does Heydinger possess name recognition, but he also lacks a legislative record, allowing him to define himself whichever way he chooses in the campaign for November.  Heydinger is 67, and both the Reflector and the Morning Journal report that Heydinger hasn’t committed to coming out of retirement.  He’d certainly have a lot more hustle in his schedule than he currently does, and he acknowledges it would require a significant adjustment.  He certainly seems to be entertaining the notion, though.

Obama turns the page

Obama took action sooner than I thought he would.  I’m glad for that.  We should never have second-guessed Obama based on Wright and religion in the first place, since we, at the least, knew that Obama was not a brainwashed cult member, and we knew that Obama had no intention of establishing a theocracy.  I certainly don’t have expectations that churches or ministers will be politically correct.  Obama, at the outset, rejected anti-Semitism.  Obama, right off the bat, expressed a very different view of America than what Wright put forward.  Obama had every right to remain in that church, no matter what people might think of Wright.  That Obama was being judged because of Wright’s words just made no sense, when Obama’s words were different.  If there’s any evidence that someone was unduly influenced by Wright’s tirades against America, it’s Mrs. Obama.  Her not-so-glowing characterizations of America have much greater potential for attracting legitimate criticism because she speaks as an Obama surrogate, whereas, Wright never did.

Watching the pundits last night, I can see that a number of them are willing to finally put this in the rear-view mirror, and the majority of them are now drawing a line that separates Wright from Obama.

And while a few conservative pundits, like Sean Hannity and Hugh Hewitt, are just too stubborn to abandon a flawed argument, I think most conservative pundits are eager to move on to other topics.

Clinton operatives, however, are still trying to milk the anti-Wright sentiments for all they’re worth.  In particular, on Larry King, Lanny Davis, while conceding that Wright’s views are not Obama’s views, is still harping on what the whole episode reveals about Obama’s judgment.  That’s just ridiculous.  Obama said that Wright wasn’t vetted by his campaign.  Before now, I didn’t know the campaign of any candidate, anywhere in the United States, was expected to vet the pastors of the candidates to make sure they were politically correct.  If we did, Billy Graham might never have been invited to the White House by any President.  Religion is a private observance that we have no right to police, so I utterly reject the view of Lanny Davis.

However, if the criticism of Obama that’s rooted in Wright’s rhetoric continues to linger, it will take the form of the narrative that Lanny Davis puts forward about judgment.  Where Obama has truly turned the page is that I don’t think Wright will do any more damage to Obama than has already been done.  Even if Wright continues to jump into the spotlight and say more outrageous things, they will no longer shadow Obama.  Obama has cast off the shadow.

It’s clear to me that the people trying to do the most harm to Obama’s reputation aren’t Republicans.  They are Clintons.  Of course, the reputation of the Clintons is pretty bad, so that’s why they work so hard to sully the reputation of any opponent they face.  Just look at the Bill Clinton administration, where the Clintons demonized women who, in the past, had been the object of Bill’s libido.  Look at the demonization of Ken Starr.  One can even look at the demonization of House Speaker Newt Gingrich.  It’s a credit to Barack Obama that the Clintons haven’t found enough information to use against Barack in their attempts to demonize him.

Behind the scenes, I think Clinton sympathizers did the bidding of the Clintons in setting the trap for Rev. Wright at the National Press Club.  I think the Clintons seized an opportunity when they sensed that Wright loves being in the spotlight, and the more he was in the spotlight, the more he’d be robbing Obama of the spotlight, and the greater the likelihood that Wright might do serious damage to Obama.   The interview with Bill Moyers was a walk in the park for Rev. Wright, and I think it made Wright a little more cocky by the time he spoke to the NAACP.  The NAACP audience was not one that was going to be hostile toward Wright, so since that went fairly well, I think Wright was lulled into a false sense of security and an overconfidence in his own ability to play the media like it was his own violin.  I think the Clintons had a hand in extending the speaking invitation to Wright, I think Wright was emboldened to accept the invitation because of his glowing self-assessment of the two prior speaking engagements, and I think that Clinton sympathizers at the National Press Club may have been egging Wright on with applause and laughter in the hopes that Wright would become more strident and say things that were more outrageous, and it worked.  Rev. Wright lacked judgment, though, because if there is an audience that’s not going to embrace a religious perspective, it would be a room full of journalists.  Why wouldn’t Wright know that?

Obama still has a lot of work to do.  His body language during the press conference about Wright wasn’t leaderly.  He clearly was agitated.  His usual facile way with words escaped him.  Clinton will try to propagate the narrative that she’s a leader, so as Obama needs to seize the spotlight, he also needs to epitomize power and leadership going forward in order to put the Clintons behind him.  That’s the next page Obama needs to turn.

In Barrett’s wake: GOP wins

For personal reasons, Matthew Barrett resigned as state representative in Ohio’s 58th House District. It would not have been easy for Matt Barrett to win re-election anyway. He was living on borrowed time because he was a Democrat occupying a Republican seat.

I’m sure ODP Chair Chris Redfern was counting on holding that seat in his master plan for Democrats to capture the Ohio House of Representatives, so the Democrats not only lose the 58th, but they lose their opportunity to capture the lower chamber of the General Assembly.

I’m going to go out on a limb here (OK, it’s not really a limb, I’m hugging the trunk of the tree with my feet firmly planted on the roots) and predict that former Huron County Commissioner Terry Boose wins the 58th House seat for the GOP this November, and squashes the Dems attempt at a takeover of the House.

How much money is the ODP willing to spend on retaining the seat? A bunch? That’ll be good, because that means that money that could have been distributed to other candidates will be eaten up in a failing effort.

So far, the Democrats have a list of names for a replacement that is so short, they are going to have to lengthen it.

First on the list is former state rep and current Ohio Lottery Deputy Director, G. Daniel Metelsky. I didn’t know that Metelsky had moved into the 58th District. If he hasn’t moved there, then, that nips that idea in the bud. If he has moved there, I’d have to point out that. though he was a former state rep, he didn’t represent a district with THESE demographics. He represented a district that was roughly analogous to the current 56th District (which was where he was living when he ran for the Democrat Party State Central Committee seat in 2004), which stretches from Lorain to Oberlin. with a Democrat Index of about 70%. The Democrat index of the 58th District is probably about 44%. Metelsky’s name recognition would only help him in the northernmost finger of the district that shoots up from Amherst into the Lorain County side of Vermilion on Lake Erie’s shore. Half the voters live in Huron County, and they have no knowledge of Metelsky. When they learn that Metelsky was a Democrat that used to represent Lorain and Oberlin, they’ll by turned off. He won’t get the Ohio Right-to-Life or NRA endorsements that Barrett had, and needed, to eke out a narrow win over a lackluster opponent during the 2006 election year that proved disastrous for the GOP statewide. Terry Boose doesn’t have as high an undesirable rating as the 2006 GOP candidate did. Boose also has greater name recognition, as the 2006 GOP candidate was making his first run for public office. Metelsky’s position with the Ohio Lottery Commission won’t help him, either. Gambling is unpopular in the 58th District.

I suppose, if he’s a 58th District resident now, it wouldn’t hurt to appoint Metelsky to the seat so long as Metelsky is given an assurance that he can be appointed back to the Ohio Lottery after he loses in November. There’s no other Dem that will win the seat, and any other Dem would have to start looking for a new job just as soon as they fill Barrett’s seat, because they won’t win the election.

Another name bandied about was Norwalk Mayor Sue Lesch. She wouldn’t want the job. She can get re-elected too easily where she’s at. If anything, get a former office holder to take the state rep seat, not a current one who has a lot more job security. Besides, Lorain County Democrat Party Chairman Tom Smith apparently isn’t interested in a woman taking the seat. The Morning Journal quotes him thus: ‘We want someone who is bright, sharp, intelligent, hungry for the job and has his family behind him.” Note the pronouns?

A third name bandied about was Huron County Auditor Roland Tkach, who won the auditor election during the Democrat high tide of 2006, so he can stay in office until at least 2010, and earn a higher salary as auditor than he could as state rep even if he DID win in November. But he wouldn’t win in November. But either way, there’s no way he could be better off by taking the state rep job. It doesn’t surprise me that the Morning Journal reports that Tkach isn’t interested.

If the Dems really want their best shot at winning, they should see if their 2002 nominee, Ken Bailey, is still a voter in the district. Bailey already garnered name recognition his first time out when he was running against a current (at the time) multi-term winning county officeholder, and he already knows the district well. Bailey also can get the necessary Ohio Right-to-Life and NRA endorsements. Last time he ran, Bailey was still in high school. Now he’d be prime-time. If he’s available, that’s who’d be the Dems best bet against Boose.

But I think the GOP has already won.

Betty Sutton mixing it up with the WoMbats

Word of Mouth contributor Bruce Batista had these unflattering things to say about Sutton’s efforts in Congress to address the worsening oil crisis.  The staff of Betty Sutton, who represents Ohio’s 13th Congressional District in our nation’s capitol, sent this response.  I think the response falls flat, and I expressed my reasons for saying so over on WoM.

Why is the Left paranoid about Fox News?

Obama should have granted an exclusive interview to Fox News much sooner.

I think the Democrats should have had a Nevada pre-primary debate on Fox News.

But no. Liberals everywhere screamed that having a Democrat debate on Fox News would only legitimize the channel that they deem to be a partisan tabloid.

If there were a Democrat and a Republican debating each other, and there was a perception that Fox was biased toward the Republicans, then I can understand the fuss. But when there are only Democrats?

How would a debate on Fox have been any worse than the one hosted by MSNBC where Hillary chided Tim Russert and Brian Williams for poor question selection and for making her answer the tough questions first while giving Barack an easy time of it?

How would a debate on Fox have been any worse than the one hosted by ABC, where the Obama campaign was aghast, again, at the question selection?

Were the criticisms about question selection even valid? After all, I can tell you what Clinton and Obama have said about health care, about the economy, about the war on terror, about Afghanistan, about Iraq, about our veterans, about No Child Left Behind, about housing foreclosures, about trade, about diplomacy, about the budget, and about taxes. Plus, they have legislative records that we can use to gauge their stance on a host of other issues. So, MSNBC and ABC both asked questions designed to establish the veracity of campaign messages, probing the sincerity of campaign advertisements, fleshing out the character of the candidates, seeing if the candidates had been telling the truth–in essence holding the candidates accountable for what they had been saying. What’s the harm in that? There’s a lot of good in that. Fox News could have accomplished those feats just as easily as the other networks, plus I think Fox would have pressed the two Democrats to more clearly define their immigration positions, which is something they’ve been too squishy on for fear of alienating either Latinos or alienating blue-collar whites when they are trying to lock up both constituencies.

Fox has viewers. Fox has ratings. Fox attracts advertisers. Fox is able to pay the bills and make a profit. That’s what legitimizes Fox. Sorry, liberals.

But the main reason why I say that Obama should have done an interview with Chris Wallace much sooner is that last night, on Bill O’Reilly, I saw that Obama had won a convert in the controversy over Rev. Wright. As I’ve already said, we shouldn’t attribute Wright’s views to Obama when Obama is saying something totally different than what Wright is saying. I, frankly, don’t care much for Mr. No-Spin-Zone, because I think he is overly subjective in his approach, and suffers from momentary lapses of logic. But when he rambled through his talking points at the top of the hour, I was amazingly in agreement with O’Reilly all the way through. What happened? Chris Wallace asked Barack Obama questions about Wright, and O’Reilly watched the interview. O’Reilly concluded that Obama was “a stand-up guy.” Those were his words . . . “a stand-up guy.” I noted that the interview caused many other observers, even at other networks, like CNN where Anderson Cooper hosted a panel of pundits, were believing that Obama really does disagree with the looped Wright rhetoric. There’s not much question of that anymore. Obama’s Fox interview achieved some good.

But Obama’s not out of the woods yet.

So far, the narrative that has emerged from the debates, interviews, and speeches is that Clinton is a feisty liar (Bosnia is but one illustration), while Barack is a transparent wimp. The transparency is a good thing. That’s what I like about Obama. But what Obama has to do now is to take the Democrat party by storm. He has to prove he’s a stronger, more powerful leader, and that as feisty a fighter as Clinton portrays herself to be, he has to show that he is the one who commands.

I realized last night that this Reverend Wright distraction will not go away until Obama, himself, pushes it away. Wright has begun making a flurry of appearances, heightening his notoriety, and sucking up all the oxygen in the room. Wright is clearly relishing the spotlight and is not going to relinquish it. Obama can’t afford to wait until this media frenzy over Wright dies down before getting the media to cover his candidacy on his terms again. Obama is already projected to lose Indiana.

I think what Obama needs to do is treat Wright as if he were Clinton or McCain in his speeches. Obama has said he won’t disown Wright, but he can still ridicule some of Wright’s rhetoric. After all, Obama says that he is a friend of Clinton, and that his supporters would embrace Clinton if she were the nominee, but that doesn’t stop him from ridiculing Clinton as an Annie Oakley wannabe. It didn’t stop Obama from ridiculing Clinton for hinting that the person in first place could accept the VP slot while the 2nd place person takes the C-in-C slot in order to unify the party. Obama says he respects McCain, but he’s given McCain a new first name–it’s not John anymore, it’s Bush. He can still maintain publicly that he feels friendship and respect for Wright while ridiculing Wright with wickedly funny barbs that mock the looped rhetoric. I think, if he does that, and people laugh are entertained by Obama’s repudiation of Wright’s rhetoric, Obama will have upstaged Wright, will have stolen the spotlight back from Wright, and can resume broadcasting a campaign message again. There are harsher, more dramatic steps Obama can take, too, and he should try them if this smoother approach doesn’t work, because he can’t allow Wright’s grandstanding to deny him the nomination. If he doesn’t act, not only will he lose primaries after Indiana’s, but he will fail to be acknowledged as a leader, and that could possibly lead to either a Clinton stealing the nomination, or McCain blowing him out in November.

Perhaps he could make an appearance on Hannity and Colmes and deliver his barbs while deflating Hannity at the same time. I’d like very much for Hannity to move off the Reverend Wright topic and move back to the substantive issues, perhaps expounding upon why raising taxes, even if on the “rich,” is the wrong approach to a mired economy. I think America needs to have a more sophisticated knowledge of the economy and taxes, but we won’t cross that bridge while we’re standing still jabbering about Rev. Wright.

If a Democrat is going to run as an inclusive unifier, someone who will be everyone’s president, then that Democrat needs to appear on Fox. If a Democrat is going to show that they are a strong leader that can weather the storms, then they need to appear on Fox, wear the storms are brewing. When a Democrat is going to exemplify audacity, then that Democrat needs to have the audacity to appear on Fox.