Reasons why Republican fears about Obama are unfounded and why Democrats need to temper expectations

Overview

During the campaign I really grew tired of hearing all the Republican predictions of the end of civilization in the event of an Obama victory, AND I also was displeased with what some Democrats were expecting if Obama won and the Dems kept control of Congress. This post will attempt to explain why both sides now should just take some time to think things through and adjust accordingly. To me what is rather funny is that the same reasons as to why Republicans' fears are unfounded are the same reasons why Democrats must temper their expectations. To illustrate this, I will first address the one Republican concern that I think was at least semi-reasonable.

Electing Obama would put Democrats totally in charge of the federal government.

One common concern I heard from Republicans as the election drew closer (and Obama's lead in the polls grew larger) was the prospect of having Democrats control both Congress and the Executive branch. What this really boiled down to was a concern that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would then run the country. I considered this to be a legitimate, but unlikely, concern. Even I would not want Pelosi and Reid running the country, but I never thought that would happen. One way that could happen is for Obama to be submissive to Pelosi and Reid, and I just do not see nor ever have seen that happening. Everything I saw from him in the long campaign showed me that he was not going to be pushed or pressured into following someone else's agenda, but rather that he would call the shots. If anyone out there saw something different, fell free to share. Otherwise, I'll stick to my conclusion that Pelosi and Reid will not be bossing Obama around.

Another way this concern could become reality is if Obama's policy goals are identical to those of Pelosi and Reid. Again, I do not see that as likely. I reiterate what I said in ...and now for the Democrats: "Given that (Obama's) main objective appears to be...a change (in the process and procedure)[.] If I am correct, my prediction that there will not be wholesale policy change will also likely be correct, meaning that the far-left views of Pelosi and (possibly) Reid will not come to be implemented.

What this means for Republicans is that you should not obsess over Pelosi and Reid taking over the government. What this means for Democrats is that you should not expect the federal govrnment to become far left wing, ultra liberal.

Now let's get to one specific Republican fear...

An Obama administration will be anti-Israel.

As Joe the Plumber put it, some Republicans felt that electing Obama would mean "death for Israel." Even if that extreme view was not widely held, many Republicans were convinced that an Obama administration would be anti-Israel (and, of course, that was in part due to the "fact" that Obama is Muslim). When Shepard Smith of Fox freakin' News refutes such an idea, you would think that might carry some weight with Republicans, but for those who still have doubts, just take a look at the first person Obama chose for his administration. The first position he filled was White House Chief of Staff, the one person that will have constant access to the President and have the job of implementing his agenda. That job now belongs to Rahm Emanuel, Congressman from Illinois. Emanuel is Jewish. And here are some more facts I found in this article. His father emigrated to America from Israel, and his father was part of the pre-Israel Jewish underground led by Menachem Begin (which was fighting against the British and Arabs). In 1933 his uncle, Emanuel Auerbach, was killed in a skirmish with Arabs in Jerusalem, and the family changed its last name to his first, as a tribute. Rahm and his brothers attended summer camp in Israel. And in 1991 he volunteered "for a few weeks in a program run by the Israeli army where civilians could help the Israel Defense Force with support work on an army base." Now if Obama was so anti-Israel, why would he select Rahm Emanuel to be White House Chief of Staff?

And then there's another thing Obama did that would not seem to fit the profile of someone who is anti-Israel, namely insisting that Senate Democrats keep Joe Lieberman in the Dem caucus and let him remain as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, which is a topic unto itself.

Obama's actions toward Lieberman should quell Republican concerns AND temper Democrats' expectations.

I have to say that I don't like Joe Lieberman. I used to, but not anymore. On matters of national security--particularly the Iraq war--I generally disagree with him. I think he has turned into a bitter, cranky old man who lapses into childish behavior. And then there's the matter of what I found to be his loathsome behavior in campaigning against Obama. For those who might have forgotten, Lieberman went along with and reiterated the GOP talking points that Obama is in league with terrorists, that Obama endangered our troops, and that Obama hasn't always put the country first. And he did some of that as a speaker at the Republican National Convention! Why the hell should he be allowed to stay in the Democratic caucus, and why should he be allowed to retain his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee?

Indeed, most Democrats wanted Lieberman tossed out on his sorry ass. At the very least, they wanted him stripped of his plum position as head of the Homeland Security Committee--and they said so publicly. For instance, Patrick Leahy, one of the senior-most Dems in the Senate, said the following:

I'm one who does not feel that somebody should be rewarded with a major chairmanship after doing what he did. I felt some of the attacks that he was involved in against Senator Obama...went way beyond the pale. I thought they were not fair, I thought they were not legitimate, I thought they perpetuated some of these horrible myths that were being run about Senator Obama.

And even Harry Reid wanted to put the screws to Lieberman. As reported by the AP, "Reid...was initially inclined to strip him of the Homeland Security Committee chairmanship[.]" After the whole affair was resolved, Reid said "I pretty well understand anger. I would defy anyone to be more angry than I was."

And in spite of everything, Barack Obama wanted to keep Lieberman in the Democratic caucus and allow Lieberman to keep his prized chairmanship. Indeed, it was pretty much Obama's wishes that kept Lieberman in the Dem caucus and preserved his chairmanship. As Sen. Tom Carper put it, "The Senate Democratic caucus has decided that if President-elect Barack Obama can forgive, so can we. If Barack can move on, so can we." Howard Dean, DNC chairman, put the matter more succinctly when he said that the Senate had acted "in the spirit of unification, which is what the President-elect wanted. He called the shots, and that's fine."

So, the Lieberman affair provides evidence that indeed Obama is primarily committed to bringing about the change in process and procedure as I have described. It also shows that Democrats should not focus on revenge. And it also shows that Obama, not Harry Reid, is going to be the one to "call the shots," which supports my conclusions in the second section of this post.

Another example of Obama's efforts to work with Republicans--Robert Gates

It looks like Obama is going to keep current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in that position. Personally, I think this is a good move because I think Gates has done a good job--especially since he had to deal with the abject mess left by Rumskull, Wolfowitless, Feith, and the rest of those neocon criminal assholes. As the Washington Post analyzed this choice,

Gates is well respected on Capitol Hill and within the military as a non-ideological, decisive leader willing to consider alternative views. He is credited with putting the Defense Department back on an even keel after the turbulent years under Donald H. Rumsfeld and with helping revise the Bush administration's failing policy in Iraq. Gates served for a time on the Iraq Study Group, which issued recommendations in fall 2006 on how to revise the U.S. war strategy, including a call to explore "constructive engagement" with Iran and Syria.

Gates is a Republican and a current member of the Bush administration. How's that for "reaching across the aisle"?

Conclusion

There are other examples , but I think the above analysis shows that the fears of Republicans are largely unfounded AND that Obama is going to try to get Democrats to work with Republicans, which means that Democrats should not expect massive changes to very liberal policies.

Will Obama stay true to what I consider to be his vision of change? I don't know, and if he does not, I will be concerned. However, his actions so far indicate that he will stick to and implement that vision, and that's a good thing.

...and now for the Democrats.

Here are my basic messages to Democrats:

• Don't get cocky.
• Don't seek revenge.
• Don't expect wholesale changes in policy.

I will update this post with details later today...

And here we go...

Let's start with the first message. Yes, Democrats scored definite victories in the 2006 and 2008 elections. First, we regained majorities in both houses of Congress in 2006. Then in 2008, we increased those majorities AND won the White House. However, the majorities in Congress still are not large enough that Democrats can do whatever they want. More to the point, Democrats are still going to have to get some Republicans to work with them, especially in the Senate. Also, those majorities could be reduced or eliminated in 2-4 years. Now that Democrats basically have control of the federal government, they had better produce some positive results. Failure to do so could very well lead to a change in the elections in 2010 and 2012.

Keep in mind also that while Obama won a decisive victory, it was by no means a landslide, and in more than a few states he won, the margin was very close. What this means for Democrats is that while there might be a mandate of sorts, it is not so great that Democrats can now simply do whatever they want without regard to the Republicans, which leads to the second and third messages.

My basis for the second and third admonitions can be found in Post-election lessons for Republicans. In that post, I wrote the following:

The foundation of (Obama's) campaign was "change." And as I have explained time and time again to people, the "change" he was talking about did not address policy (and Democrats need to remember that I said that). The "change" he was talking about from the start was a change in the process and procedure. The change he was talking about was changing all the bullshit that has been going on under Republican rule (and that included some same type of behavior by Democrats--remember that I said that). The change he was talking about was trying to get both sides to work in a way where actual meaningful discourse would occur which could lead to things getting done. The change he was talking about was trying to get Democrats and Republicans to have some respect for each other and try to work together.

This means that seeking revenge on Republicans for all the bullshit of the last eight years is not an option. See, that is not part of the President-elect's plan. Moreover, seeking revenge would be a continuation of the "party first, country second" crap that has been the SOP for at least the last ten years. As I tried to explain in Post-election lessons for Republicans, the prospect of changing that SOP was what really put Obama over the top, and a failure by Democrats to at least attempt such change will not set well with voters. Furthermore, such a failure will result in another failure, namely actually getting things done (which, again, could lead to Democrats losing power in 2010 and 2012).

And now for the third message...Obama did campaign in part on policy differences between the past eight years and his objectives, but I reiterate that policy was not the basis of his campaign. Policy was not what really resonated with voters. The change in the process and procedure was the basis of his campaign and why (in my opinion) he won. Given that his main objective appears to be (and more on that in upcoming posts) such a change, wholesale policy change is not likely. The only way to undertake such big policy change would be to completely disregard and marginalize Republicans, and that apparently is not part of Obama's agenda. Also, as mentioned, the size of the Democratic majorities in Congress and the lack of a definitive mandate make such disregard and marginalization not possible as a practical manner. Consequently, Democrats, don't think that suddenly everything is going to change on the policy front.

And that is another lesson Republicans need to keep in mind, as will be explained in a subsequent post.

Some data to support to underscore the previous post

Check out this post at TPM Election Central.

Post-election lessons for Republicans

Face it, Republicans--you have been beaten in the last two elections. You lost majorities in both houses of Congress in 2006, you lost even more ground in Congress in 2008, and a Democrat will soon be in the White House. And he got there by winning some key "red" states.

There are reasons why your party is out of power, and if you don't recognize and accept those reasons and then change, your party is going to stay out of power for a long time.

Here are the reasons in a nutshell...As a party, Republicans have offered nothing of substance. Instead, they have used negativity and fear to gain and try to retain power. As a party, the GOP has made the following standard operating procedure: hypocrisy, corruption, and cronyism (as in party and personal loyalty are relevant while competency and ethics are irrelevant). As a result of all of this, the Republicans have basically done a crappy job.

And just in case you think I am wrong, consider the list of "accomplishments" of the Republican party: most of the policies that caused the current economic crisis, vast expansion of the federal government, record government spending, record budget deficit, the Iraq war (and all that involves), systemic disregard of constitutional rights (domestic spying, torture, and other violations), blatant politicization of the Department of Justice, the response to Katrina, drastic diminishing of our standing internationally, and on and on...

Let me be clear here...it was not so much what the Republicans did as how they went about it. Slowly more and more people saw through the bullshit, and then they got sick and tired of it.

And into this setting came Barack Obama. Some Republicans do not realize why Obama won the election. Here's a news flash--it was not because those of us who voted for him were mesmerized and failed to see what an evil heathen bastard he is. The foundation of his campaign was "change." And as I have explained time and time again to people, the "change" he was talking about did not address policy (and Democrats need to remember that I said that). The "change" he was talking about from the start was a change in the process and procedure. The change he was talking about was changing all the bullshit that has been going on under Republican rule (and that included some same type of behavior by Democrats--remember that I said that). The change he was talking about was trying to get both sides to work in a way where actual meaningful discourse would occur which could lead to things getting done. The change he was talking about was trying to get Democrats and Republicans to have some respect for each other and try to work together.

That is the message that attracted people--plain and simple.

And then Obama largely conducted his campaign in accordance with that message. On the other hand, McCain's campaign was almost nothing but negative attacks, and they did not work (just as they did not work for Hillary in the primaries). Obama offered substance and a change in the system that people wanted. McCain offered none of that. Instead, McCain played to the base of the Republican party, which was to go negative and try to scare everybody about an Obama presidency. In other words, the McCain campaign was almost entirely about why people should have voted against Obama rather than for McCain.

And here's one of the lessons the "base" of the Republican had better learn: you are out of touch with the clear majority of this country. The last two elections prove that. A good number of Republicans are recognizing this, but unless the "base" wakes up and accepts this, the Republican party will be out of power for a long time. During the 2004 campaign and up until this election, I said repeatedly that any Democrat wanting to be President would have to get some Republican votes. Obama did just that. And guess what, Republicans? The tables have turned. From now on, "turning out the base" is not going to be enough for you to win elections. You are going to have to get some Democratic votes. You are going to have to offers ideas of what you are going to do rather than try to demonize Democrats.

And here's a related lesson: cut the hypocrisy in general but specifically in the slogan you started using in this election regarding "country first." The GOP has put the party and retaining power first and the country has been a distant second at best. Either show that you are actually putting country first and party second or face an extended time in the wilderness. In other words, practice what you preach (and maybe don't "preach" so much).

Another lesson goes back to why Obama won the election. The message of change in the process and procedure was not merely the central theme of Obama's campaign. In my opinion, it was the unifying factor among his supporters. It was the one thing upon which all of them could agree. What this means for the GOP--particularly the base--is that ultra-partisan, divisive tactics are not going to get you anywhere. Does that mean you have to just give up and never stand up to the majority party (like most of the Democrats did during the last eight years)? No. But it does mean that you are going to have to at times cooperate and almost all of the time you are going to have to focus on why your ideas and positions have merit instead of doing nothing but attacking the other side.

And speaking of ideas, many of you Republicans would benefit from learning the actual principles of "conservatism," for as has been discussed some on this blog and in many, many other venues, the GOP of the last 8-10 years has had little to do with conservatism.

I am sure there are other lessons to be learned, but the major point, Republicans, is that your party has got to adapt and change from what it has been or you are going to be out of power for a long time.

And by the way, Democrats better take heed of this lessons lest they become applicable to us in the near future...

Messages to Republicans and Democrats

The day after the election I said, "I will have much to say (to both Republicans and Democrats) in a few days," and I will do that via a series of posts. Here are the basic themes: 1) all the Republicans claims and fears are not likely to happen (to put it mildly), and 2) any Democrats who think that they will get everything they want are mistaken.

Up first--lessons Republicans damn well should learn and apply.

Some thoughts on Hillary as Secretary of State

When the news of Hillary possibly being offered the job of Secretary of State, my first thought was "Are you kidding me?" I still don't particularly like the idea, primarily because I think that out of the other names that have been mentioned, Bill Richardson would be a better choice. Then again, I wish my man Wes Clark was in the running, but back on topic... I have other reasons why the choice of Hillary is not one I like. For instance, in terms of the major foreign policy issues of the last few years, there are huge differences between Obama and Hillary, like, oh, the Iraq war. Personally, I don't want anyone as Secretary of State who vigorously supported going to war and was doggedly unrepentant about that until way into the Democratic primaries.

And on top of that, why would Obama want someone like that as Secretary of State? Why would he want anyone who chided and derided him as being wrong and naive on many foreign policy matters? Why would he give such a prominent position to someone who wants to run against him in 2012 (and you know she does)? In short, why in the hell would Obama want Hillary as Secretary of State?

And then I started seeing some answers to that question. If she turns him down, neither she nor her supporters could ever claim that he disrespected her or failed to make her a big part of his administration. If she turns him down and stays in the Senate, she will have to work with Obama on almost everything or it will seriously look like she is doing nothing but trying to sabotage Obama so that she can run against him in 2012. And if she works with Obama, she won't really be in a position to run against Obama. If Obama's administration is unsuccessful, she will be seen as no different from Obama (much like McCain couldn't separate himself from Bush). If Obama's administration is successful, she will not be able to convince people there should be a change. On the other hand, accepting the cabinet post could create huge obstacles to her running in 2012. As Secretary of State, she would have no opportunity to impact domestic policy. That means she could not take any credit if the economy improves, health care improves, etc. If there are foreign policy failures, she can't point the finger of blame at Obama. If there are foreign policy successes, how could she claim that there should be a change in 2012? In other words, by offering Hillary Secretary of State, Obama is not merely "keeping his enemies close," he is making an effective move to keep Hillary out of the 2012 picture. And the best part is that he is making Hillary make the decision...

And here's another possible reason...If Obama really wants to try to work with Republicans, don't you think they would be happy about Hillary not being in the Senate? Don't you think that Obama could score a few points with them by being the one that gets her out of the Senate?

Gee, am I perhaps a little too jaded and cynical?

Don't lose sight of this GOP Senator.

I almost decided not to post this because I am aghast at all the speculation that is already happening about who is the frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 20-freakin-12. However, I wanted to go on record as to someone that folks better keep an eye on, and it ain't Sarah Palin.

It is John Cornyn.

Roll Call reported that Cornyn is all but certain to become the next chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. That means that he will be in charge of the Republicans' efforts to regain a majority in the Senate in 2010. Trust me when I say that this will be a significant first step in Cornyn's attempts to increase his power.

My experience with Cornyn began when he was on the Texas Supreme Court. He was at one time my favorite judge on that Court. That changed when he became a key supporter of the adoption of the current Texas "no evidence" summary judgment rule (would take way too long to explain all that), and I haven't trusted him since. My next experience with him came when he was Texas Attorney General. I would love to tell that story, but the strictures of attorney-client confidentiality prevent that. Suffice it to say that my distrust of him grew.

Cornyn is very smart, very savvy, and very ambitious.

Even if the GOP does not regain a majority but gains seats in the Senate in 2010, expect Cornyn to be a serious contender for 2012.

Derek Redmond and the meaning of the Olympics

NOTE: I began working on this post the day before the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics. I kept working on it through the Beijing Olympics--and beyond. Then I hit the wall as to blogging. The Democratic primary season had exhausted me, and the prospect of blogging through the general election campaign sent me into full burnout mode. As I mentioned back in August, I feel this story is timeless. And maybe, in this time of transition and, for some, uncertainty, this story will have meaning.

I have never met Derek Redmond, and I am not claiming that I know what he was thinking or feeling. If any part of this post misrepresents him in any way, I apologize to him.

With that in mind...

I love the Olympics.

My love of the Olympics began when I was six years old watching the track and field events of the Mexico City games of 1968, and it has never diminished.

There are those who think the Olympics are irrelevant and/or unnecessary. For sure, there are myriad problems with the Olympics–and there likely always will be. However, I feel that the Olympics serve a tremendous, overarching purpose.

I have previously described what was for me a tremendous Olympic moment, namely The Miracle on Ice. However, the purpose of which I write today goes beyond what I wrote four years ago.

There are many examples showing that purpose, but for me the greatest example is Derek Redmond.

Derek Redmond's story was retold during the Beijing Olympics via a Visa advertisement. It was the ad which showed a 400 runner pulling up lame in a race and then finishing with the help of his father. While that ad told the basics of the story, there is so much more to tell.

In the event you do not want to read this telling of the story, just scroll down to the videos.

Setting the stage

Prior to the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona, the U.S. had dominated the Men’s 400 and the 4 X 400 relay. In fact, the U.S. had won 13 of the previous 18 Olympic relays. [1]

But in the summer of 1992, the 400 runners in Great Britain decided that it was time for a change. At the world championships in 1991, the British team of John Regis, Derek Redmond, Roger Black, and Kriss Akabusi had taken the gold with the then second-fastest time in history,[2] and they were determined to end American dominance in the Olympics. And they were talking about it every chance they had.

At this point, I need to explain some things about the world of track and field (known as "athletics" outside the U.S.). While other events–the 100, 1500, mile, and others–might get more attention and glory, the 4 X 400 is in reality the premier event. Here in the States, almost every track meet has the 4 X 400 as the last event. Even in the Olympics, the last events on the track are the men’s and women’s 4 X 400 relays (the last track and field event is the men’s marathon, but only 500 meters out of 26.2 miles takes place on the track). In meets where team championships are awarded, this relay often determines the champion. There is no event in track and field that has more–or as much--drama. There is no event that is more exciting. If there was a 400 race in which four runners from one team faced four runners from another team as individuals, and one team placed 1-4 and yet the "losers" then beat those "winners" in the 4 X 400 relay, the relay victors would receive the all the praise and glory and would be considered the superior athletes. That's just the way it is, and it is particularly true for big meets.

So, for the Brits to beat the Americans in the 4 X 400 at the World Championships in 1991 and be talking serious smack going into the 1992 Olympics were big deals. That constituted not only throwing down the gauntlet but picking it back up, slapping the Americans with it and then saying "What are you going to do about it?" And rest assured that this was not empty talk. The Brits absolutely had the grit and talent to win Olympic gold.

Redmond’s back story

The leader of the Brits was Derek Redmond. In 1985 he set the British record in the 400 with a time of 44.82. He was 19 years old, and big potential was before him. Redmond realized much of that potential in 1986 as part of relay teams that won gold at the Commonwealth Games and European Championships. 1987 brought more success as he regained the British 400 record from teammate Roger Black with a time of 44.50.[3] And then the Brits finished second to the U.S. in the 4 X 400 at the World Championships. [4] That result convinced the Brits that they could eventually overtake the Americans, and they set out on a mission to do so. That mission was accomplished at the 1991 World Championships as British 400 hurdles champion Kriss Akabusi ran a brilliant anchor leg to edge out American Antonio Pettigrew at the line to claim gold. [5]

But success for Redmond was also accompanied by struggle, especially in the form of injuries. For instance, at the Seoul Olympics in 1988, he had to withdraw minutes before the opening round of the 400 because of an injury. Some reports said the injury was a hamstring while others said it was an Achilles tendon. [6] Over the next year, he went through five surgeries. [7] By the time of the Barcelona Games, Redmond had undergone a total of eight surgeries, including operations on both Achilles tendons. [8] While the tendons had been repaired, there was one possible injury that always had hung (and always will hang) like a sword of Damocles over every sprinter–a hamstring pull.

The 1991 World Championships gold was glorious, but an even greater mission loomed, namely the 1992 Olympics. Britain had an excellent chance to win gold in the relay, and Redmond was poised to win an individual medal in the 400.

He was healthy and beyond determined. He was 26 years old and coming into the prime of his career. He felt that a silver medal and a time of 44.0 was possible in the 400. [9] He told his coach "We're going to enjoy this one. We're going to come back with something." [10]

Redmond’s 1992 Olympic experience

In the opening round of the 400, Redmond won his heat and had the fastest time heading into the quarterfinals, where he also won his heat. [11] As he explained a little over a year ago, after those two races "I was bouncing about my chances. I felt so good that I thought I could win the marathon if I had been entered. My Dad said that in winning my two heats I was a different animal." [12]

And then came the semi-finals. Redmond came out of the blocks strong, and he looked powerful, smooth, and in control entering the backstretch. I remember thinking as I watched the race that he was easily going to make the final.

And then the Damoclean sword fell. About 150 meters into the race, Redmond’s right hamstring pulled. For those who have never experienced a hamstring pull, allow me to describe it. First you feel a pop in the back of your leg. There is a slight pause before the initial pain hits, and that pain is very sharp and intense. It then goes from sharp to constant and increases in intensity. And then your leg simply ceases to function. There is no recovery. There is no respite. You can neither extend your leg fully nor bring your lower leg back–at all. Your leg becomes useless, and any attempt immediately brings back the sharp pain. Generally after a hamstring pull, you shoot up and somehow maintain your balance and hop on one leg and then collapse to the ground once you stop moving. And that’s just what Redmond did.

I immediately knew what had happened to Redmond, and I gasped. To see that his Olympic dream had been taken from him–again–broke my heart. Realize that in that moment not only did Redmond’s individual dream end. Britain’s dream of winning gold in the 4 X 400 also disappeared, for there was no way, as good as the other team members were, they could beat the Americans without Redmond.

And then the amazing things started. Redmond, his face twisted in physical pain and emotional anguish, got up and starting hopping on one leg in his lane. I realized that he damn well intended to finish the race, and I started cheering out loud. Officials tried to stop him, but he pushed them away. I began cheering louder. A medical crew came on the track with a stretcher, but Redmond told them "No, there's no way I'm getting on that stretcher. I'm going to finish my race." [13]

Redmond has said that "It was all animal instinct. I kept thinking I could still catch the other runners. I didn't want to quit. I'm a very selfish person." [14] I didn’t think it selfish at the time, and I still don’t. And apparently the 70,000 spectators in the stadium did not think so either, as they began cheering for Redmond as well. Redmond also said that "I wasn't doing it for the crowd. I was doing it for me. Whether people thought I was an idiot or a hero, I wanted to finish the race. I'm the one who has to live with it." [15]

Perhaps I am wrong about Redmond not being selfish. I am, after all, biased, because I would have tried to do the same thing. As a result, what I saw was extraordinary courage and determination. What I saw was a desire not for glory, but to finish what he had worked so hard for. What I saw was a valiant refusal to give up or give in. And that is why I started cheering even louder.

Then I saw another person run onto the track and grab Redmond. I thought it was another official, and I started yelling at the TV for the man to leave Redmond alone. It was then that the announcers identified the man as Jim Redmond, Derek’s father. Redmond described that moment as follows: "Everything I had worked for was finished. I hated everybody. I hated the world. I hated hamstrings. I hated it all. I felt so bitter that I was injured again. I told myself I had to finish. I kept hopping round. Then, with 100 metres to go, I felt a hand on my shoulder. It was my old man." [16]

I became silent as I witnessed what ensued.

At this point, I think best to watch the entire event as it happened. I found plenty of videos on You Tube, and you can watch two of them here. The first one shows the entire event without commentary but with musical accompaniment. You can mute the music if you wish, for the video alone sufficiently presents the story. The second video also has music, but I advise not muting the audio because there is some commentary by Derek Redmond.








Jim Redmond was Derek's biggest fan, biggest supporter, and best friend. Jim went to every major competition Derek had. Jim had worked hard at his own machine shop to pay for Derek’s training, and because of all that support and love Derek dedicated his 1992 Olympic efforts to his father. [17]

Before the 400 semis began, Jim Redmond took a seat at the top of the stadium. Here’s how Rick Weinberg described Jim’s reaction once the injury occurred:

"Oh, no," Jim says to himself. His face pales. His leg quivering, Redmond begins hopping on one leg, then slows down and falls to the track. As he lays on the track, clutching his right hamstring, a medical personnel unit runs toward him. At the same time, Jim Redmond, seeing his son in trouble, races down from the top row of the stands, sidestepping people, bumping into others. He has no credential to be on the track, but all he thinks about is getting to his son, to help him up. "I wasn't going to be stopped by anyone," he later tells the media. [18]

By the time Jim got to his son, Derek had finally accepted that he was not advancing to the final and that in fact his Olympics were over. [19] When Derek first felt that “hand on my shoulder,” he was probably thinking it was another official trying to stop him, and he tried to push his father away.

However, Derek quickly realized that it was his father by his side. Jim said, "You don't have to do this. You don't have to put yourself through this." [20] This was Derek’s reaction as he described it to Lee Honeyball:

It was the last thing I was expecting. When my dad told me I didn't need to do this, I told him just to help me get back into my correct lane. In that case, he said, we would finish the race together. He says he didn't think it was the time or the place for a domestic dispute, so he did what I wanted. It never occurred to me that the crowd would react to what was going on as they did. I was oblivious to everything except trying to finish. [21]

Father and son started forward with Derek hopping and Jim jogging alongside, with his right hand around Derek’s waist and his left hand supporting Derek’s left arm. After about 30 meters, Derek slowed, then stopped, then put his left arm around his father’s shoulders because he he needed the physical support. And then Derek broke out in tears and buried his face in Jim’s neck. And for reasons I will explain later, this sequence is what moved me and impressed me the most.

The two Redmonds then continued down the home stretch, this time at a walk. Amazingly, more officials attempted to get them off the track. Unlike the first time, Derek did not have to fight them off, for Jim made damn sure that his boy was going to be allowed to finish the race.

And then, at last, Derek Redmond crossed the finish line.

Afterwards, Jim Redmond said, "I'm the proudest father alive. I'm prouder of him than I would have been if he had won the gold medal. It took a lot of guts for him to do what he did." [22] Indeed, it did take a lot of guts, and that is what I will now address.

What Derek--and Jim--Redmond showed us all

Derek Redmond showed the utmost in determination and courage--first by fighting through disappointment in 1988, injuries, and surgeries to make it to the 1992 Olympics, then by winning two heats, and then by getting up to try to finish his semi-final heat. All of that took a lot of guts. That is obvious.

However, I feel that other actions by Redmond that day showed an even greater depth and breadth of guts. When he began crying on his father's shoulder, Derek Redmond laid bare his vulnerability and admitted that in that moment he needed help. Derek Redmond was the living definition of a tough guy--someone who walked the walk and definitely talked the talk, all while never even hinting that he had any weakness. In my view, that is part of the reason why he was able to overcome all the adversity to get to the 400 semis in 1992. And in that one moment with his father, all the "tough guy" characteristics went away. No longer could Redmond show that solely on his own he could beat any obstacle. And Redmond did this in front of almost the entire world. That, folks, took guts.

Perhaps one could argue that Derek had no choice in this matter, that the enormity of the situation simply overcame him. Even if that is true, what followed next was, as far as I am concerned, his choice. He could have told his father that he did not want any help, that he was going to cross the finish line on his own. In spite of everything that had happened, I still feel that Redmond could have crossed the line on his own--even if he would have had to crawl. But he did not do that. Instead, he allowed his father to help him.

Admitting to oneself, much less the entire world, that you need help can be difficult, but I find it is often even harder to accept help. Pride, fear, embarrassment, and a host of other factors can keep any of us from accepting help. There are some times at which great strength and courage are needed to overcome those factors. In that moment of seeming weakness and defeat, Derek Redmond found and displayed such strength and courage. But there is even more that made this moment amazing.

...and that brings us to Jim Redmond. What he did was nothing short of manifesting the utmost love a father could give his son. He could have stayed in the stands. He could have stopped when officials tried to keep him off the track. He could have insisted that Derek stop. He could have been over protective. However, he did none of that. He never hesitated. He went to his son to offer no less--and no more--than unconditional support and assistance. He allowed his son to decide what he would do and how it would be done.

And in return, Derek showed tremendous love for his father--the man who had worked hard and sacrificed so that he could pursue his dreams; the man who had been his best friend and biggest fan. Derek could have been stubborn and selfish by pushing his father away, but instead he chose to completely let his father into his life and accomplish something together.

By simply getting to the 400 semis in the 1992 Olympics, Derek Redmond showed that the human spirit can overcome great adversity to achieve success. What happened in that race showed so much more. For me, Derek and Jim Redmond showed us what I consider to be paradoxical truths: that in weakness there can be strength and that from tragedy can emerge triumph. And they showed us how to love others.

In sum, on that day, in those few minutes, Derek and Jim Redmond showed us what it is to be human.

Writing all of this has been a challenge for me because I have felt--and still feel--like I cannot adequately articulate what all of this means to me. At the risk of exposing my own hubris, that almost never happens to me. So, whether it be to be serve me a dose of humility or to better describe this event, please feel free to express your own thoughts.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_1992_Summer_Olympics_-_Men's_4_x_400_metre_relay

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Redmond

[3] Id.

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_World_Championships_in_Athletics

[5]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_World_Championships_in_Athletics_-_Men's_4_x_400_metres_relay

[6] Filip Bondy, "British Runner Is a Hero Even Without a Medal," New York Times, August 5, 1992; Rick Weinberg, "Derek and dad finish Olympic 400 together," ESPN.com; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Redmond.

[7] Rick Weinberg, "Derek and dad finish Olympic 400 together."

[8] Lee Honeyball, "I hated the world. Then I felt a hand on my shoulder," The Observer, January 7, 2007.

[9] Filip Bondy, "British Runner Is a Hero Even Without a Medal."

[10] Id.

[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Redmond

[12] Lee Honeyball, "I hated the world. Then I felt a hand on my shoulder."

[13] Rick Weinberg, "Derek and dad finish Olympic 400 together."

[14] Lee Honeyball, "I hated the world. Then I felt a hand on my shoulder."

[15] Rick Weinberg, "Derek and dad finish Olympic 400 together."

[16] Lee Honeyball, "I hated the world. Then I felt a hand on my shoulder."

[17] Filip Bondy, "British Runner Is a Hero Even Without a Medal."

[18] Rick Weinberg, "Derek and dad finish Olympic 400 together."

[19] Lee Honeyball, "I hated the world. Then I felt a hand on my shoulder."

[20] Filip Bondy, "British Runner Is a Hero Even Without a Medal."

[21] Lee Honeyball, "I hated the world. Then I felt a hand on my shoulder."

[22] Rick Weinberg, "Derek and dad finish Olympic 400 together."

Well, what do you know...?

The sun actually came up this morning.

The sky isn't falling.

The markets aren't crashing.

The world apparently will survive to see yet another sunrise.

I'm not surprised, but I know plenty of people who are.

I will have much to say (to both Republicans and Democrats) in a few days, but for now I say that I am happy that Obama is our President-elect.