Image via Wikipedia

The hard hits. The sneaky play-calling. The spectacle of it all. Who wouldn’t love the Super Bowlish news shows that preceded the real Super Bowl? Like the game itself, the news shows made for enticing TV – and rabid partisanship. Instead of Saints vs. Colts, it was liberals vs. conservatives in winner-take-all showdowns that spotlighted the best and the worst of punditry and provocation. Here were the winners and losers:

Most Unprepared Guest: Sarah Palin. When smarmy, conservative Fox News anchor Chris Wallace asked Palin to give examples of her argument that President Obama was “telling the American people to sit down and shut up.” she stuttered and fumbled, looking very much like the uninformed, unprepared Sarah Palin of the 2008 president campaign. She managed to extricate herself out of her mental jam, though she was clearly surprised to be called on her point by a fellow conservative. You can see it here, in the fourth minute:

Worst Underachiever: Alan Greenspan on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Greenspan, the former Federal Reservev big-wig, was listless in his comments about the U.S. economy, telling moderator David Gregory in a kind of comatose drawl, “If stock prices continue to go down, I’d be concerned.” At that point, Greenspan was rebutted forcefully by former Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who praised the Obama administration, saying, “I believe the financial markets are stable.”

Biggest Intra-party Smackdown: Paulson’s of John McCain. Gregory asked Paulson if he voted for Obama in 2008, and this is how Paulson responded: “I was very impressed (with) candidate Obama …. Candidate McCain gave me more anxious hours.” Two years after his unsuccessfull presidential campaign, McCain is still getting political slaps to the face.

Most Boneheaded Tie-in to the Game: CBS’s decision to have “Face the Nation” do a live show from the Super Bowl stadium in Miami – and have the show focus on football, not politics. Among Bob Schieffer’s guests: CBS sports announcer Jim Nantz, CBS sports analyst (and former NFL player) Shannon Sharpe, and CBS sports analyst Phil Simms (also a former NFL player), all of whom gabbed about (what else?): football. It was overkill to say the least – a pandering to the network’s coverage of the real game hours later, which was made worse by Schieffer’s dubious rationalization before the cameras: “On Super Bowl Sunday it’s hard to get a conversation going about anything but the Super Bowl.”

On the Other Hand: Nantz did say one thing worth repeating: CBS and other networks that broadcast football are partly to blame for the NFL’s emphasis on hits and tackles that try to dismember opposing players. The reason? CBS and other broadcasters highlight those dismembering plays. “We’ve had them sponsored in the highlights – the ‘Hit of the week’ and other various names that really promote players to go out there and viciously lay someone out,” Nantz said.

Most Candid Pundit: CNN “Reliable Sources” host Howard Kurtz asked Democratic heavyweight James Carville – who was in Miami for the game: “Does your agenda today include the consumption of alcoholic beverages?” Carville, never one to hold back, said the only thing he could have said: “It most certainly does.”

Most Hyped Interview: CNN’s with Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, done by Candy Crowley in a new Sunday show called “State of the Union With Candy Crowley.” Clinton talked on an on and said nothing of real substance. On the subject of reports that Al Qaeda may strike America in the next several months, for example, Clinton announced: “You have to be constantly vigilant … (But) I think it’s really important for people to just go along with their daily lives … You can’t be fearful … of what’s happening.” For Crowley, the most interesting thing Clinton said may have been this: “Well, Candy, first of all, congratulations on your new show. I really wish you well. You have a lot to contribute to Sunday morning television.” She does, but her interview with Clinton was a case of style over substance.

Finally, the “Pot Calling the Kettle Black Award”: To Fox News analyst Liz Trotta, for belittling CBS News anchor Katie Couric. Trotta, who once “joked” on live TV that Obama should be assassinated, suggested that Couric wasn’t a seasoned-enough journalist – that, when it comes to foreign affairs, Couric is a pale comparison to the late Peter Jennings. It’s true that Couric’s international bona fides are pathetic, but Trotta – a former foreign correspondent – is Couric’s underling (and Jennings’ for that matter) when it comes to offering cogent commentary on TV. In her pre-Super Bowl stint on Fox, Trotta denigrated feminists for wanting more women on the Sunday talk shows. Trotta is to political TV what the New Jersey Nets are to the world of sports: An entity that’s trying hard to score points and failing badly for everyone to see.

Police guard protesters outside a meeting of the London Commission as former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair testifies on Jan. 29, 2010 (Peter Macdiarmid/Getty)

The cameras recorded Tony Blair’s obituary yesterday. Blair didn’t die physically (he looks perfectly healthy), but his reputation took a final, precipitous plunge into nothingness. Ten years ago, Blair was one of the world’s foremost political leaders – a British Prime Minister on the verge on winning a second straight term; a man who, on the day he led his Labour Party to victory in June of 2001, prompted his Tory opponent to say, “As a person, I respect him enormously. Quite rightly, a lot of people respect him.”

The respect was there because Blair had brought integrity to 10 Downing Street – had used his Oxford-educated intellect to stabilize the U.K.’s economy; had overseen a major peace transition in Northern Ireland; and, in his mid-40s, had restored confidence in a country that had tired of aging Conservative Party bureaucrats John Major and Margaret Thatcher. As the Daily Telegraph noted upon Blair’s 2001 re-election, he was “Labour’s star performer.”

That was then. Blair left office three years ago in turmoil, his reputation changed forever after cheerleading the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Blair was derided as “Bush’s poodle” for rubber-stamping the U.S. president’s gung-ho approach to war in Baghdad. Yesterday – as he has done consistently since 2003 – Blair defended his decision to involve Britain, saying he still has “no regret” – despite the fact that the supposed main reason for war (Iraq’s ability to detonate “weapons of mass destruction”) was proven to be dubious. “Bliar” is how protesters refer now to Blair, who has blood on his hands.

Blair doesn’t have to worry about legal recriminations. The London commission he spoke to yesterday is simply reviewing the British government’s responsibility for the Iraq War, not prosecuting it. Outside the halls of official Britain, however, Blair has to watch out. A fellow Oxford graduate, writer and activist George Monbiot, has spearheaded a reward to anyone who makes a citizen’s arrest of Blair. Thousands of dollars have been donated to Monbiot’s campaign at www.arrestblair.org. The money is another “nail in the coffin” to Blair’s once-pristine reputation.

Image via Wikipedia

In San Francisco, I haven’t seen too many bumper stickers saying “Palin for Prez in 2012,” but if you’re looking for a gauge of America’s current political temperature, look no farther than liberal San Francisco, where Sarah Palin – yes, that Sarah Palin – has a widespread fan base. In the city that begat the Summer of Love and jump-started the counter-culture movement, the conservative ex-governor of Alaska has become a much-admired figure – among both women and men.

Let me name some names. Nancy Workman. Steve Rodriguez. Shevon O’Rourke Dieterich. Mark Silverman. Roy Azem. Maureen Ennor. All of them are connected to San Francisco, and all of them admire Palin in a public way. How public? Workman, Rodriguez, Dieterich, Silverman, Azem, and Ennor spotlight their support for Palin on Facebook, which is the place to go these days and advertise your allegiances.

Rodriguez told me that Palin “is a leader who could bring this country true change,” adding that, “Sarah Palin is a perfect example of a strong-minded and strong-willed woman who can be an extremely positive role model for women who don’t have to abandon their values in order to achieve a high professional status. She is not afraid to stand up for her beliefs.”

Rodriguez supports the Republican Party, but he and other San Francisco fans of Palin are no fringe group. Rodriguez enjoys the Sopranos, listens to Marvin Gaye, and is a fan of a tattoo site that shows off celebrities (Rihanna, Eminem, et al.) and their fashionable markings. Silverman, a producer for a San Francisco radio station, is into stand-up and improv comedy. Workman, who works for a consulting firm, admires the heroic airline pilot Sulley Sullenberger and comic Dennis Miller. Azem watches South Park, and listens to Bon Jovi, Van Halen, and Michael Jackson. Ennor also likes Michael Jackson – along with Johnny Depp and Johnny Cash. Dieterich is a Facebook fan of a company that makes gourmet alcohol.

In the last week, there’s been lots of handwringing about the Democrats’ loss of Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat. Yesterday, New York Times columnist Frank Rich weighed in, writing that Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts is “a dire omen for the White House” – that President Obama has shown too little backbone in taking on the U.S. banking system and pushing through healthcare reform, while jobs continue to evaporate. Into this void came Scott Brown, who credited his victory to Massachussets’ “independent majority,” then warned Obama and his fellow Democrats: “For them it is just the beginning of an election year filled with surprises. They will be challenged again and again across this country. When there’s trouble in Massachusetts, there’s trouble everywhere – and now they know it.”

Yes, they do. So does Palin, who hopes the Democrats’ troubles continue until 2012, when the Iowa caucus will be held. Political columnist Walter Shapiro has outlined a scenario where Palin could win the GOP’s 2012 presidential nomination. For the legions of anti-Palinates out there, the idea of a Palin presidency is more than sickening. It’s absurd. But Palin – unlike Obama – has seen her poll numbers go up of late. I once called Palin “the Wicked Wink of the West,” but she could have the last laugh if former Democratic seats continue to go into the Republican column. Talking to Rodriguez online has given me a greater sense of Palin’s power to attract voters looking for a giant change of pace.

Image of Frederick Douglass via Wikipedia

On the streets of Port au Prince, there was chaos and bloodshed. Screams punctuated the air. In pitched battles between government soldiers and armed Haitians, scores of people were killed. The date: May 28, 1891. Frederick Douglass was then the U.S. Minister to Haiti, and lived in Port au Prince, seeing firsthand the political and economic upheaval that continued to rock Haiti. Despite his experience there, Douglass believed the country would thrive in the years ahead – especially if the United States treated Haiti with the respect that Douglass said it deserved.

What happened to Haiti’s prospects? For one thing, the country was subjected to American hegemony. During Douglass’ time there, Washington wanted Haiti’s northern harbor as a naval port for American warships. Haiti resisted. Douglass empathized with the country’s plight, but Washington’s military leaders put pressure on Haiti’s government to accept U.S. terms. They also put pressure on then-U.S. president Benjamin Harrison to fire Douglass, according to William S. McFeely’s biography of Douglass. At one point, the U.S. Navy supplied arms to a Haiti opposition leader, Florvil Hyppolite, giving him the means to overthrow elected president Francois Legitime.

After his stint in Haiti, Douglass – a former slave who became one of America’s greatest political figures – delivered a rousing speech at the 1893 World’s Fair in Chicago, where he chastised U.S. policies toward Haiti, saying that, “It so happens that we have men in this country who, to accomplish their personal and selfish ends, will fan the flame of passion between the factions in Haiti and will otherwise assist in setting revolutions afoot.”

This “selfishness” continued – on and off – for the next century as the United States sought to dictate Haiti’s economy and politics. From 1915 to 1934, Washington occupied the island country. Most recently, in 2004, Washington orchestrated the coup that ousted president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, according to Aristide. Before that, experts from the United States and other foreign countries convinced Haiti to implement economic policies that prompted Haiti’s rural population into Port au Prince – an immigration pattern that led to cramming of people into unsafe areas around the capital, which were leveled in last week’s massive earthquake, according to Brian Concannon, director of the Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti.

Today is the day that Americans celebrate Martin Luther King Jr’s birthday. In King were still alive, he likely would have criticized America’s past intervention in Haiti – at the same time that he praised the Obama administration’s swift response to Haiti’s disaster. As noted by journalist Casey Gane-McCalla, King criticized U.S. foreign policy for emphasizing military endeavors over genuine aid. But King also saw the promise of America and of bereaved foreign countries such as Haiti. Douglass did, too. Both leaders were optimists and realists.

In Haiti, Douglass saw a country where – for the first time in modern history – former slaves gained independence as a sovereign nation. Haiti’s problems weren’t all foreign-made, of course. Corruption and military coups have kept the country unstable. As Douglass noted in his 1893 speech, “There are ebbs and flows in the tide of human affairs, and Haiti is no exception to this rule. There have been times in her history when she gave promise of great progress, and others, when she seemed to retrograde. We should view her in the light broad light of her whole history.  . . . Upon such broad view I am sure Haiti will be vindicated. . . . She has taught the world the danger of slavery and the value of liberty. In this respect she has been the greatest of all our modern teachers.”

Al Sharpton, who is flying today to Haiti, said his trip was fueled by “moral imperative,” and that, “It would be the height of hypocrisy to talk about celebrating Dr. King and not deal with Haiti.”

Amen to that.

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Let me tell you my Mark McGwire story: It’s April of 1997, and McGwire is playing for the Oakland A’s baseball team. His arms are big. His salary is big. His ego is big. Twice in two days, I visited the A’s locker room to do a story on McGwire’s teammate, Geronimo Berroa, who was having the beginnings of a breakout season. I spent the first day interviewing Berroa, then returned the second day to interview Berroa’s teammates – and this is what I got from McGwire: “Why didn’t you speak to me yesterday. I saw you here. I was available then.” Those were the words out of McGwire’s mouth when I asked – politely – if I could speak with him.

I didn’t know it then, but McGwire was taking anabolic steroids to achieve his bigness. A bad temper is one of the side effects of taking the ill-advised drugs. That was then, when McGwire could show his contempt for a visiting journalist. Yesterday, there were tears and sniffles as McGwire confessed to another journalist, this one Bob Costas. “I brought a lot of people down,” McGwire told Costas as the cameras rolled. “It doesn’t feel good.”

Nor should it. Another coddled athlete who made tens of millions of dollars (at least $70 million, according to baseball-almanac.com), is forced to admit a painful truth. McGwire cheated and deceived to get to the top. Now, like Nixon with David Frost, McGwire is trying for instant redemption – a media mea culpa that he hopes will ingratiate him back into public acceptance. It won’t work. Like Nixon, McGwire represents the low point in his profession. I got to experience that long before the general public did.

Back in 1997, Berroa wanted to be like McGwire. Berroa showed me an autographed card of McGwire that he kept above his locker. Berroa also spotlighted a card of Jose Canseco, whom he also idolized. Both players had “strength,” Berroa told me. “I don’t see anybody stronger than they are. It’s unbelievable. It (putting up their cards) is because they’re the only two guys I’ve been surprised by in baseball. They’e the strongest guys I’ve ever seen in my life.”

Later, Berroa would allegedly try to imitate McGwire and Canseco by taking steroids to pump up his body. Pro baseball’s steroids controversy prompted many fans to dismiss the sport. McGwire inflated himself at a heavy price. Only in middle age does he realize that. McGwire doesn’t want to be like Canseco, who makes money these days by fighting publicly in the ring. Last May, Canseco could be seen cowering in a boxing corner against his opponent. Yesterday was McGwire’s turn. I’m not swept up in a mood of Schadenfreude. But let’s just say that McGwire’s public descent seems like a case of karma at work.