There are a lot of important questions out there that need answers. How are we going to cap the oil leak in the Gulf? Are the Israelis going to ease the embargo in Gaza? Is The World Cup going to use video review in the future? But of all these questions, the one that is on everyone’s mind is: What really caused Lady Gaga to have a meltdown in Jerry Seinfeld’s box at Citi Field a few weeks ago?
We all know what happened. At some point during the game Gaga freaked out, stripped down to her underwear and proceeded to give everyone the finger. Had Gaga been anyone but a celebrity performing artist, the nut patrol would have been called and she would have been shipped off to a mental hospital in a straight jacket with an IV in her arm pumping Thorazine.
So what happened? Well, I think I figured it out. And in doing so, a major breakthrough in the field of mental health may now be available that might well rank with medical discoveries such antibiotics, vaccines and X-rays. But I’m getting ahead of myself.
Let’s begin with Lady Gaga at Citi Field. Through the use of sophisticated audio technology, one can actually hear what went on. The following is a partial transcript of Gaga interacting with a guy sitting 20 meters away just prior to her meltdown:
Guy- “ Hey Gaga, your hair looks like crap. What happened? Did a dog sleep on your head last night?”
Gaga– “ Bleep you, you bleeping moron. I’m Lady Gaga and you’re a jerk.”
Guy- “ Hey Gaga, I’m wrong. It wasn’t a dog that slept on your head, it was a raccoon. Have you ever heard of shampoo? It’s toothpaste for your hair.”
At this point Gaga takes off her clothes and begins to walk around with her finger in the air, seemingly having lost it completely.
Gaga- “ Hey jerk, what do you think of me now?”
Guy-“ You’re dumber than I thought. Put your clothes back on and, GOOD GRIEF, get a new hair stylist.”
A few more exchanges took place, but you get the picture. So what does this have to do with a major psychological breakthrough? Fast forward to Wednesday, June 30th, the front page of the Personal Journal section of The Wall Street Journal. Proctor and Gamble, the consumer products giant that manufactures Pantene, scientifically researched the relationship between hair products and mood. Their results were summarized in the article. And, lo and behold, here’s what they found:
Women felt less “hostile, “ashamed”, “nervous,” “guilty” or “jittery” depending on the hair products they used, while at other times felt more “excited,” “proud” and “interested.” To summarize, if you like your hair you’re joyful, if not, you’re hostile.
Who knew the proverbial “she’s having a bad hair day” was this profound? Ladies, stop taking Xanax and Prozac! Fire your therapist! Toss your Anthony Robbins and Deepak Chopra tapes! JUST BUY PANTENE. It’s not what’s going inside you head that matters; it’s what’s happening on top of it. And guys, you should be listening too. Don’t buy her flowers on Valentine’s Day, a case of Pantene will keep her much happier. And you too.
It’s now clear as to what happened to Lady Gaga at Citi Field. It wasn’t the photographers that got her crazy, it was the fact that she had run out of Pantene and didn’t wash her hair that day. And when that guy made reference to the state of her hair, well, that put her over the edge. And Gaga looks like she’s pretty close to the edge to begin with.
As for me, who both practices psychotherapy and sells hypnotic audio programs, I’ve decided to make some changes based on these latest scientific findings. First, every one of my audio programs now comes with a $5 off coupon at Rite Aid for Pantene products. But more importantly, I’ve installed a salon sink in my office and I’ve hired, Mr. Sergio, an Italian hair stylist to be my assistant. Every woman patient now gets a wash and blow before each session. I’m checking with insurance companies to find out whether it’s reimbursable.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Saturday, June 26, 2010
STOP THE BUZZING!!
When I first heard the sounds, I thought something had gone wrong with my TV reception, the sort of problem that occasionally occurs with telephones when lines get crossed. Here I am watching the opening round World Cup match between the US and England when it is clear to me that ESPN and National Geographic have crossed signals. Nat Geo must be airing a special on bees. All that buzzing I was hearing couldn’t possibly be coming from the ESPN transmission. So I called Time Warner to see what the problem was and to get things remedied. The following is a bit of my conversation:
Me – “Hello, my name is Lloyd, and I’m having trouble with my reception.”
Rep- “ What’s seems to be the problem, sir.”
Me- “ ESPN and NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC have crossed signals."
Rep– “ Uh, what do you mean sir, crossed signals? That’s not possible.”
Me– “ Oh, it’s happening right now. The Bee Documentary has crossed over and it’s playing in the background of The World Cup. I’m hearing BUZZING; it is everywhere."
Rep- “ Sir, Nat Geo is not airing a documentary on bees right now. But you think you’re hearing bees. Perhaps there’s a beehive outside your window. Have you looked outside sir?"
Me- “ There’s no bees outside, just the bird that likes to walk through our ceiling ducts every so often."
Rep– “ Sir, you seem to be hearing a variety of wildlife sounds in your New York City apartment – quacking, chirping, buzzing."
Me– “ I SAID DUCTS, NOT DUCKS! THERE’S NO QUACKING GOING ON HERE!"
Rep– “ It’s amazing how the mind works, sir. You hear things and then, viola, they’re gone. Sometimes when you’re really tired strange things start happening. Have you gotten a good night’s sleep lately? That might help."
Me– “ I’M NOT SLEEP DEPRIVED. I JUST HEAR BUZZING."
Rep– “ Sir, have you thought about talking about this with your doctor. Or maybe it's an indication of something a bit more serious. Perhaps talking with a psychologist would help.”
Me– “ I AM A PSYCHOLOGIST.”
Rep- “ Really. Well, I’m sure your patients are getting excellent care. But I would stick to treating neurotics. I think psychotics might be a bit much for you."
Click
It would not surprise me at all to hear that large numbers of people actually did call up their cable or dish operators to complain when The World Cup first began to air. For it took about 24 hours before everyone watching fully understood that the cause of the buzzing was the Vuvuselas, the tin horns whose buzzing makes fire engine sirens sound pleasurable. While I understand they are part of South African culture, they simply don’t belong in The World Cup. Their volume interferes, not only with players ability to hear each other, but with the organic sounds of the crowd as well. And the energy of the crowd - the ebb and flow of excitement – can have a dramatic impact on the outcome of a game. Anything that interferes with the relationship between players and spectators has no place in spots. Simply put, manufactured noise should be banned at sporting events.
Someone brought a Vuvusela to Yankee Stadium last week and started blowing on it early in the game. That lasted about 4 seconds. The horn was confiscated and the fellow was politely told that if this happened again, he would be watching Yankee games at home for the rest of his life. The same rules should have been applied to The World Cup. Let the athletes play. Let the crowd roar. That’s why we watch.
Me – “Hello, my name is Lloyd, and I’m having trouble with my reception.”
Rep- “ What’s seems to be the problem, sir.”
Me- “ ESPN and NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC have crossed signals."
Rep– “ Uh, what do you mean sir, crossed signals? That’s not possible.”
Me– “ Oh, it’s happening right now. The Bee Documentary has crossed over and it’s playing in the background of The World Cup. I’m hearing BUZZING; it is everywhere."
Rep- “ Sir, Nat Geo is not airing a documentary on bees right now. But you think you’re hearing bees. Perhaps there’s a beehive outside your window. Have you looked outside sir?"
Me- “ There’s no bees outside, just the bird that likes to walk through our ceiling ducts every so often."
Rep– “ Sir, you seem to be hearing a variety of wildlife sounds in your New York City apartment – quacking, chirping, buzzing."
Me– “ I SAID DUCTS, NOT DUCKS! THERE’S NO QUACKING GOING ON HERE!"
Rep– “ It’s amazing how the mind works, sir. You hear things and then, viola, they’re gone. Sometimes when you’re really tired strange things start happening. Have you gotten a good night’s sleep lately? That might help."
Me– “ I’M NOT SLEEP DEPRIVED. I JUST HEAR BUZZING."
Rep– “ Sir, have you thought about talking about this with your doctor. Or maybe it's an indication of something a bit more serious. Perhaps talking with a psychologist would help.”
Me– “ I AM A PSYCHOLOGIST.”
Rep- “ Really. Well, I’m sure your patients are getting excellent care. But I would stick to treating neurotics. I think psychotics might be a bit much for you."
Click
It would not surprise me at all to hear that large numbers of people actually did call up their cable or dish operators to complain when The World Cup first began to air. For it took about 24 hours before everyone watching fully understood that the cause of the buzzing was the Vuvuselas, the tin horns whose buzzing makes fire engine sirens sound pleasurable. While I understand they are part of South African culture, they simply don’t belong in The World Cup. Their volume interferes, not only with players ability to hear each other, but with the organic sounds of the crowd as well. And the energy of the crowd - the ebb and flow of excitement – can have a dramatic impact on the outcome of a game. Anything that interferes with the relationship between players and spectators has no place in spots. Simply put, manufactured noise should be banned at sporting events.
Someone brought a Vuvusela to Yankee Stadium last week and started blowing on it early in the game. That lasted about 4 seconds. The horn was confiscated and the fellow was politely told that if this happened again, he would be watching Yankee games at home for the rest of his life. The same rules should have been applied to The World Cup. Let the athletes play. Let the crowd roar. That’s why we watch.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Lance, Floyd and the Joy of Cycling
I think it’s a safe assumption to say that most, if not all of us, are tired of reading about the use of performance enhancement drugs (PEDS) in sports. Hearing that another ball player has tested positive is about as interesting as learning that Lindsay Lohan got drunk again. Nobody cares. That said, there is something fascinating about what’s happening in cycling right now that has got my attention. And given that I have absolutely no interest in the sport, that’s saying something.
Let’s begin with Floyd Landis. By now everyone knows that Floyd was stripped of his 2006 Tour de France title for testing positive for testosterone. Claiming innocence and blaming the positive test on either sloppy lab work or shenanigans on the part of the French, he proceeded to fight the cycling authorities to get his title back. He spent enormous amounts of money – much of which was donated by people who believed him – on various appeals but, ultimately, he lost. Despite all of this, Mr. Landis remained steadfast in proclaiming his innocence. Until now. In what must rank as one of the strangest announcements in the history of sport, he sent a series of emails to the cycling authorities saying that, in fact, he did cheat, and he’s been lying about it ever since. But that wasn’t enough. He then implicated most of the other top riders – including Lance Armstrong –claiming they were all doping during the same time period.
All of this begs two questions. First, what exactly was going through Floyd Landis’s mind leading to his admission of guilt? And second, what does this all mean for Lance Armstrong? Forget about all the other riders, nobody knows who they are. Cycling is only about Lance.
You don’t have to be a psychologist to know that Floyd Landis is one angry guy. His fight-flight response is permanently stuck in the on position. While on the surface he professes to be doing all of this to cleanse his soul, you can almost hear his internal voice screaming,
“YEAH I CHEATED … WE ALL CHEATED…YEAH, LANCE TOO…YOU THINK HE WON ALL THOSE TOURS ON TALENT ALONE…. I DESERVE THAT TITLE...I’M NOT GOING DOWN ALONE… YOU TOO LANCE…YOU KNOW THE TRUTH...NOW YOU’RE ALL GOING TO SUFFER.”
In Floyd’s mind, ironically, he wants justice. And on some level, there’s logic to his craziness. Before baseball players knew the difference between steroids and asteroids, cyclists were using their bodies as chemistry experiments. For them, using PEDs wasn’t cheating, it was science. And Floyd was just doing what everyone else was doing. Unfortunately, he got caught after winning cycling’s most prestigious event.
Floyd’s behavior became even more surreal during the Tour of California, which was taking place when the story gained media attention. He showed up at the event with bodyguards and wearing a bullet proof vest. Floyd had either tipped over completely, or he wanted to make some dramatic statement about the legitimacy of his claims . Either way, this was better than any reality TV show currently airing.
And while all this was going on, Lance Armstrong was the coolest guy in town. In addition to Lance calmly stating that he has always tested clean, his statements about Floyd sounded cleverly sympathetic and subtly patronizing.
On the other hand, some of the statements coming from other riders were reminiscent of Mark McGuire at the Congressional Hearings a few years back. George Hincapie, a teammate of Lance Armstrong said, “whoever wants to talk about something eight years ago, fine, they can waste their time on that. I want to talk about the future of the sport and the sacrifices we put into it.” Oops, that doesn’t sound so good. Fortunately for him, this was in response to a question from a reporter and not testimony under oath before Congress.
So, what are we left with? Is Floyd Landis telling the truth? The only problem with Floyd’s accusations is that he only has his recollections of events, no actual bloody needles, photos, documents, etc. That’s not to say he’s lying, it only means proving these accusations is somewhat problematic. And herein lies Floyd's dilemma.
In order for him to get the justice he so desperately wants, somebody – some other rider or support staff - is going to have to come forward and corroborate his story. And that is never going to happen. Assuming Floyd’s Landis’s accusations are true, the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico has a better chance of plugging itself than seeing another rider come forward to implicate Lance Armstrong.
Lance is the Godfather of cycling. The level of intensity that drove him to cycling immortality doesn’t disappear when he steps off his bike. It’s the core of his personality. When you couple his iconic status as an athlete with his heroic status as a cancer survivor, you see an athlete on a pedestal that no other individual has ever occupied. Lance Armstrong is The Ultimate American Hero.
Floyd Landis let his rage get in the way of his judgment. He’s alone out there and nobody is going to stand next to him. As an old wise man once said, “never mess with the Godfather.”
---------
Let’s begin with Floyd Landis. By now everyone knows that Floyd was stripped of his 2006 Tour de France title for testing positive for testosterone. Claiming innocence and blaming the positive test on either sloppy lab work or shenanigans on the part of the French, he proceeded to fight the cycling authorities to get his title back. He spent enormous amounts of money – much of which was donated by people who believed him – on various appeals but, ultimately, he lost. Despite all of this, Mr. Landis remained steadfast in proclaiming his innocence. Until now. In what must rank as one of the strangest announcements in the history of sport, he sent a series of emails to the cycling authorities saying that, in fact, he did cheat, and he’s been lying about it ever since. But that wasn’t enough. He then implicated most of the other top riders – including Lance Armstrong –claiming they were all doping during the same time period.
All of this begs two questions. First, what exactly was going through Floyd Landis’s mind leading to his admission of guilt? And second, what does this all mean for Lance Armstrong? Forget about all the other riders, nobody knows who they are. Cycling is only about Lance.
You don’t have to be a psychologist to know that Floyd Landis is one angry guy. His fight-flight response is permanently stuck in the on position. While on the surface he professes to be doing all of this to cleanse his soul, you can almost hear his internal voice screaming,
“YEAH I CHEATED … WE ALL CHEATED…YEAH, LANCE TOO…YOU THINK HE WON ALL THOSE TOURS ON TALENT ALONE…. I DESERVE THAT TITLE...I’M NOT GOING DOWN ALONE… YOU TOO LANCE…YOU KNOW THE TRUTH...NOW YOU’RE ALL GOING TO SUFFER.”
In Floyd’s mind, ironically, he wants justice. And on some level, there’s logic to his craziness. Before baseball players knew the difference between steroids and asteroids, cyclists were using their bodies as chemistry experiments. For them, using PEDs wasn’t cheating, it was science. And Floyd was just doing what everyone else was doing. Unfortunately, he got caught after winning cycling’s most prestigious event.
Floyd’s behavior became even more surreal during the Tour of California, which was taking place when the story gained media attention. He showed up at the event with bodyguards and wearing a bullet proof vest. Floyd had either tipped over completely, or he wanted to make some dramatic statement about the legitimacy of his claims . Either way, this was better than any reality TV show currently airing.
And while all this was going on, Lance Armstrong was the coolest guy in town. In addition to Lance calmly stating that he has always tested clean, his statements about Floyd sounded cleverly sympathetic and subtly patronizing.
On the other hand, some of the statements coming from other riders were reminiscent of Mark McGuire at the Congressional Hearings a few years back. George Hincapie, a teammate of Lance Armstrong said, “whoever wants to talk about something eight years ago, fine, they can waste their time on that. I want to talk about the future of the sport and the sacrifices we put into it.” Oops, that doesn’t sound so good. Fortunately for him, this was in response to a question from a reporter and not testimony under oath before Congress.
So, what are we left with? Is Floyd Landis telling the truth? The only problem with Floyd’s accusations is that he only has his recollections of events, no actual bloody needles, photos, documents, etc. That’s not to say he’s lying, it only means proving these accusations is somewhat problematic. And herein lies Floyd's dilemma.
In order for him to get the justice he so desperately wants, somebody – some other rider or support staff - is going to have to come forward and corroborate his story. And that is never going to happen. Assuming Floyd’s Landis’s accusations are true, the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico has a better chance of plugging itself than seeing another rider come forward to implicate Lance Armstrong.
Lance is the Godfather of cycling. The level of intensity that drove him to cycling immortality doesn’t disappear when he steps off his bike. It’s the core of his personality. When you couple his iconic status as an athlete with his heroic status as a cancer survivor, you see an athlete on a pedestal that no other individual has ever occupied. Lance Armstrong is The Ultimate American Hero.
Floyd Landis let his rage get in the way of his judgment. He’s alone out there and nobody is going to stand next to him. As an old wise man once said, “never mess with the Godfather.”
---------
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Self Parody and Prescription Drug Commercials
Imagine you're watching a car commercial and you hear the following: “While this vehicle has been shown to be a safe under most circumstances, occasionally there are problems that you should be aware of. Every once in a while the driver's side air bag deploys unexpectedly. This is not particularly problematic if the car is still in park, but more so if you’re moving. In addition, the heating system occasionally malfunctions resulting in a bit of smoke floating through the interior of the car. It’s nothing to be concerned about. Within ten minutes the smoke should dissipate, allowing you to see the road clearly again. There have also been instances when the vehicle’s locking mechanism gets stuck making it difficult for passengers to exit the vehicle. If this happens and you can’t open the car doors, call 911. Afterwards, be sure to contact your car dealer.“
Other than SNL or the Daily Show, it’s unlikely we’re ever going to hear anything remotely like this. Yet, the above car parody is not much different from the prescription drug commercials which, at times, border on self parody. The poster child for this self parody genre is the ad for the psychiatric drug, Abilify.
The theme of the commercial is this: If you’re currently taking a commonly prescribed antidepressant drug like Prozac or Zoloft and feel that it’s not quite working as well as you had hoped, then Abilify is for you. The combination will bring a smile to your face as you are now able to function unencumbered by life’s burdens.
I’ve watched this commercial a number of times and it never ceases to amaze me. After the initial pitch, the attention shifts to the side effects of the drug which, by law, the drug companies have to make you aware of. What’s unusual about this drug is both the number of serious side effects and the length of time it takes to recite them. The following is some of what you hear:
“If you suddenly have suicidal ideation or unusual thoughts, feel dizzy or start to vomit, experience involuntary repetitive movements of the limbs, develop symptoms of diabetes or have trouble breathing, be sure to contact your doctor.”
The third time I watched the ad, I decided to time it. It takes forty-seconds to list just the major side effects of Abilify. I don’t know about you, but if it takes a full forty-seconds to list what terrible things could possibly happen when I’m taking a drug, I'll pass. Given all the other ways that are available to help lift your mood and augment the medication you are currently on — lifestyle management changes like getting some additional sleep and exercise come immediately to mind — it would seem that taking a drug like Abilify should be the choice of last resort.
Oh, and by the way, one of the side effects that’s not mentioned in the commercial, but is likely to happen in a significant number of people, is weight gain. That’s conveniently left out. It was probably just an oversight, since a drug company would never purposely mislead the public.
I think I rather take my chances with the car whose airbags deploy unexpectedly.
Other than SNL or the Daily Show, it’s unlikely we’re ever going to hear anything remotely like this. Yet, the above car parody is not much different from the prescription drug commercials which, at times, border on self parody. The poster child for this self parody genre is the ad for the psychiatric drug, Abilify.
The theme of the commercial is this: If you’re currently taking a commonly prescribed antidepressant drug like Prozac or Zoloft and feel that it’s not quite working as well as you had hoped, then Abilify is for you. The combination will bring a smile to your face as you are now able to function unencumbered by life’s burdens.
I’ve watched this commercial a number of times and it never ceases to amaze me. After the initial pitch, the attention shifts to the side effects of the drug which, by law, the drug companies have to make you aware of. What’s unusual about this drug is both the number of serious side effects and the length of time it takes to recite them. The following is some of what you hear:
“If you suddenly have suicidal ideation or unusual thoughts, feel dizzy or start to vomit, experience involuntary repetitive movements of the limbs, develop symptoms of diabetes or have trouble breathing, be sure to contact your doctor.”
The third time I watched the ad, I decided to time it. It takes forty-seconds to list just the major side effects of Abilify. I don’t know about you, but if it takes a full forty-seconds to list what terrible things could possibly happen when I’m taking a drug, I'll pass. Given all the other ways that are available to help lift your mood and augment the medication you are currently on — lifestyle management changes like getting some additional sleep and exercise come immediately to mind — it would seem that taking a drug like Abilify should be the choice of last resort.
Oh, and by the way, one of the side effects that’s not mentioned in the commercial, but is likely to happen in a significant number of people, is weight gain. That’s conveniently left out. It was probably just an oversight, since a drug company would never purposely mislead the public.
I think I rather take my chances with the car whose airbags deploy unexpectedly.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Newtonian physics and the Obama Presidency
Anyone who every took a course in physics remembers Newton’s third law of motion: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It appears that our brain understands this quite well, which is why there is a psychological analogue of this principle that every one of us has experienced. The higher up you go – the more intense the experience of joy/happiness/elation - the further down you fall as the intensity of the experience quickly metabolizes through your nervous system. And nobody understands this more clearly at this moment in time than our President as he struggles to be a great leader.
Barack Obama came into office riding the historic wave of being the first Afro-American President, with CHANGE as his battle cry. He was confident, charismatic, intelligent and articulate. He was following a President who had none of these qualities and whose Presidency had failed miserably. From the outset it appeared as if his success would be both immediate and inevitable. Yet, one year later, 54% of the electorate disapproves of his performance. What happened and why?
We can spend a lot of time talking about issues and policy, the difficult Presidential learning curve and the continuing criticism of the conservative right, but more than anything else, the primary reason he’s struggling is that he started out way to high. When he took the oath of office it felt more like a coronation than an inauguration. The excitement and elation over his election created impossible expectations. He was anointed a savior before having done a single thing. And when he was given the Nobel Peace Prize – something he clearly didn’t deserve – that pretty much sealed the deal for his current predicament. All the substantive issues-the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economic woes and his policy initiatives-are secondary to the “physics” of his Presidency. The higher up you start, the further down you fall.
So what are we to make of all this? Does this mean Barack Obama was not meant to be a competent President nor a great leader? Does this mean the events of his first year in office presage the rest of his Presidency? Or, does it simply mean that his initial frustrations and failures had to happen in order for him to experience the reality of what the Presidency was all about. Success is only fully appreciated when you’ve earned it. Obama hadn’t failed before and truly believed everything that had carried him to victory during the election would continue unencumbered as President. He was wrong. But sometimes being wrong is a really good thing.
Now we’ll find out whether he can do this job well. Now we’ll see whether the skills he displayed as a candidate can merge with the skills he is first developing as a leader so that the President this country needs will slowly emerge over the next two years. For there will inevitably be a moment in time – some extraordinarily difficult crisis that every President eventually faces – which will force him into psychological places he has never experienced and stretch him to his limits. Then, and only then, will we know whether Barack Obama is bound for greatness.
Barack Obama came into office riding the historic wave of being the first Afro-American President, with CHANGE as his battle cry. He was confident, charismatic, intelligent and articulate. He was following a President who had none of these qualities and whose Presidency had failed miserably. From the outset it appeared as if his success would be both immediate and inevitable. Yet, one year later, 54% of the electorate disapproves of his performance. What happened and why?
We can spend a lot of time talking about issues and policy, the difficult Presidential learning curve and the continuing criticism of the conservative right, but more than anything else, the primary reason he’s struggling is that he started out way to high. When he took the oath of office it felt more like a coronation than an inauguration. The excitement and elation over his election created impossible expectations. He was anointed a savior before having done a single thing. And when he was given the Nobel Peace Prize – something he clearly didn’t deserve – that pretty much sealed the deal for his current predicament. All the substantive issues-the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economic woes and his policy initiatives-are secondary to the “physics” of his Presidency. The higher up you start, the further down you fall.
So what are we to make of all this? Does this mean Barack Obama was not meant to be a competent President nor a great leader? Does this mean the events of his first year in office presage the rest of his Presidency? Or, does it simply mean that his initial frustrations and failures had to happen in order for him to experience the reality of what the Presidency was all about. Success is only fully appreciated when you’ve earned it. Obama hadn’t failed before and truly believed everything that had carried him to victory during the election would continue unencumbered as President. He was wrong. But sometimes being wrong is a really good thing.
Now we’ll find out whether he can do this job well. Now we’ll see whether the skills he displayed as a candidate can merge with the skills he is first developing as a leader so that the President this country needs will slowly emerge over the next two years. For there will inevitably be a moment in time – some extraordinarily difficult crisis that every President eventually faces – which will force him into psychological places he has never experienced and stretch him to his limits. Then, and only then, will we know whether Barack Obama is bound for greatness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
