Editor's note: Republican Leslie Sanchez was director of the White House Initiative on Hispanic Education from 2001 to 2003 and author of "Los Republicanos: Why Hispanics and Republicans Need Each Other." She is CEO of the Impacto Group, which specializes in market research about women and Hispanics.

Leslie Sanchez says Republicans should treat Hispanics as part of the mainstream of America.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As the members of the Republican National Committee prepare to choose a party chairman to serve for the next two years, the calls for new "Hispanic outreach" initiatives are flying -- in my view, unnecessarily.

It is probably true that President Obama's election marks the beginning of a post-partisan, post-racial America, or at least a time when these issues are less divisive than in years past.

But will the two political parties be as able to look beyond the stereotypes of Latinos and what the Latino experience is in this country, as they have for other ethnic and racial groups?

As Republicans, we need to win at least 35 percent of the Hispanic vote to win the presidency. In 2008, John McCain got 31 percent, slightly exceeding the average for the past eight presidential elections. We've had our high points (George W. Bush 2004, 44 percent) and low points (Bob Dole 1996, 21 percent).

Ten years ago, as an RNC press aide, I was given the responsibility for developing a team that would design a multimillion-dollar ad strategy to appeal to the nation's emerging Latino electorate.

We conducted seminal research on Hispanic voting patterns that is still of value today. For example, we identified a "GOP Upside" of another 25 percent of Hispanics who were voting Democrat on the generic presidential ballot question but would be interested in voting for a Republican who offered a campaign agenda focused on family, education and job-creation issues.

So it is mystifying to me to hear the ongoing references to the party's need to find "a new way" to speak to the nation's largest minority bloc. It's like being asked to reinvent the wheel.

This isn't just a Republican problem. Democrats do this too, relating to Latinos as if we're primarily poor, immigrant or both. It doesn't work anymore, if it ever did. And although the anti-immigrant rhetoric spouted by Tom Tancredo and others was offensive to Hispanics and projected a "We don't want you here" image for the GOP, the fact is that it was offensive to a lot of other people, too.

In the age of Obama, that kind of exclusive message is just not marketable.

If Republicans truly want to develop a winning strategy for appealing to Hispanics, they need look no further than Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. They appealed to them not as Hispanics or immigrants but as Americans with an equal stake in the future of the country.

What Hispanics want, and what we as Republicans want them to want, is to be included in the American experience.

During the period in which Hispanics constituted a small minority of the overall nation, efforts like Richard Nixon's to ensure that they were counted in the national census were important because it meant inclusion.

When people believe that they are already part of a community, such patently obvious efforts come across as patronizing. Hispanics, especially young professionals like me who were born and raised here in the United States, believe that we deserve more than a couple of high-profile meetings and a few Spanish-language ads.

That was certainly true during the 2008 presidential campaign, which had little to interest Hispanics at all. McCain trumpeted his record as a champion of comprehensive immigration reform to Hispanics, while his campaign tried to make him more palatable to Republican conservatives by de-emphasizing his record as a champion of comprehensive immigration reform.

McCain was hurt among Latinos by the perception that he caved in on immigration enforcement and abandoned his own bill.

Obama's campaign message to Hispanics, though delivered largely in Spanish through his campaign Web site, was patronizing. In the summary of issues

Question: What do Hispanics want to be seen as?

Question: What is part of the American mainstream with broad interests?

Question: What are the hispanics part of?

Question: Who is reaching out to Hispanics?

Question: What did the candidates talk about?

Question: To who will the outreach be?

Answer: part of the mainstream of America.

Answer: Hispanics

Answer: mainstream of America.

Answer: Republican National Committee

Answer: new "Hispanic outreach" initiatives

Answer: women and Hispanics.

Summary:
Leslie Sanchez: Republicans are talking about a new outreach to Hispanics .
She says Hispanics are part of the American mainstream with broad interests .
Sanchez: Candidates, including Obama, talked about narrow issues .
She says Hispanics want to be seen as Americans, with a stake in the future .


Editor's note: Reza Sayah is one of the few Western journalists reporting from Tehran after the Iranian government placed restrictions on coverage. A man in the crowd holds up a photo of Ahmadinejad during Khamenei's address at Friday prayers. TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- People in the crowd sang songs of tribute as they waited. When he arrived, they stood and welcomed him in unison: "Praise be to God and to his prophet, Mohammed." Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader for two decades, took the stage during Friday prayers at Tehran University with a few notes on small pieces of paper in his left hand. He leaned on the lectern with his right arm, crippled in an 1981 assassination attempt. He was ready to put an end to a week of unrest. First, a sermon about the dangers of division and disunity, using the language of Islam. Then came secular sentences, decidedly direct. He praised the huge turnout at the polls as a victory for Iran but criticized post-election turmoil as the work of Iran's enemies -- the United States, Israel and Britain. "The enemies want to destroy our confidence. They want to create doubt about the election," Khamenei said. A full hour passed before he delivered a verdict that supporters of opposition presidential candidate Mir Hossein Moussavi did not want to hear. "Eleven million votes difference?" he asked. "Sometimes there's a margin of one hundred thousand or two hundred thousand, or one million, maximum. Then one can doubt, be concerned that there has been some rigging or manipulation. "But there's a difference of 11 million votes. How can vote rigging happen?" To be clear, he reminded the crowd of the victor at the polls. It was the man sitting in the front row: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He was the "the absolute victor," Khamenei said. "If political elites want to ignore or break the law and willy-nilly take wrong measures which are harmful, they will be held accountable for all violence and  blood and rioting." Few in the crowd were disappointed with the cleric's words. "Death to America!" the people chanted repeatedly, interrupting Khamenei's speech. "Death to Israel." Noticeably absent Friday was Moussavi, the man who had sparked Iran's unrest by calling for a recount of the votes. Absent, too, were Moussavi's supporters, who did not take to the streets to protest as they had done in previous days. There were no signs and placards on the streets. Or people clamoring for change. The tens of thousands who showed up for Friday prayer were a stark contrast to the demonstrators. They were mostly religious conservatives, supporters of Ahmadinejad. And they had a message for the president's opponent, though it was not always consistent. Some were conciliatory. "The nation should come together," one said. "We are all one." Others took a hard line: "They must stop with the demonstrations, otherwise there will be consequences." Just what those consequences might be may become apparent Saturday afternoon, when the demonstrators are expected again on the streets of Tehran. But for now, Iran's supreme leader had issued his warning clearly: Enough is enough.

Question: What does supreme leader sermonizes about?

Question: What did the crowd chant?

Question: Who endorses official results?

Question: What did Khamenei sermonize about?

Question: What did the supreme leader sermonize about?

Question: Who did Khamenei blame for the post-election turmoil?

Question: Who did the Ayatollah want re-elected?

Question: What does the crowd repeatedly chant?

Question: Who interrupts him to chant "Death to Isreal"?

Question: Who sermonized about the dangers of diviosn and disunity?

Answer: the dangers of division and disunity,

Answer: "Praise be to God and to his prophet, Mohammed."

Answer: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,

Answer: the dangers of division and disunity,

Answer: the dangers of division and disunity,

Answer: the United States, Israel and Britain.

Answer: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Answer: "Death to America!"

Answer: the people

Answer: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,

Summary:
Supreme leader sermonizes about dangers of division and disunity .
Khamenei: Post-election turmoil the work of the United States, Israel, Britain .
Ayatollah endorses official results showing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected .
Crowd repeatedly interrupts him to chant "Death to Israel" and "Death to America"


Editor's note: Rich Roll, one of Men's Fitness magazine's "25 Fittest Guys in the World" in 2009, was the first athlete to compete in the Ultraman World Championships on an entirely plant-based diet. He's sharing insights today as part of Dr. Sanjay Gupta's "Four Months to Fitness" effort. Before: At 40 years old, Rich Roll called himself "fat, unhappy and fed up." (CNN) -- I can still remember it, vivid as yesterday. It was the eve of my 40th birthday, and I walked upstairs to take a shower. And I was winded. I mean very winded. As I was trying to catch my breath, I took off my shirt, looked in the mirror and tried to convince myself that I was still that fit guy I had always thought I was. Somehow, I had been able to skate by on this delusion for all too many years. But the denial had finally caught up to me. I saw my true reflection, and I couldn't lie to myself anymore. I was in the worst shape of my life. I was fat, unhappy and fed up. It's the typical story. First it's the career. Then comes marriage, followed by kids. Your time is no longer your own, and you resign yourself to "maturity," "filling out" or whatever euphemism for middle age that soothes that idea that you are simply overweight, unfit and unhealthy. I'm here to say that it doesn't have to be that way. I don't care how busy you are. I don't care how old you are, how many kids you have or how little time you think you have. The power rests within yourself to enact any change in your life you desire. And I can say this because I have seen it happen in myself and countless others. After that fateful day of clarity, I made a decision to change my life. Not a vague, wishy-washy notion that I should "get in shape," maybe "eat better" or possibly "go on a diet," but rather a specific long-term plan to enhance my wellness in a way that would not only stick, but fit within the parameters of my busy life as a full-time lawyer, husband and father of four small children. In my case, it began with a well-researched and supervised seven-day fruit and vegetable juice cleanse (during which time I weaned myself off caffeine), followed by an entirely plant-based nutrition program -- an animal-product-free regimen I have adhered to ever since. The immediate result was a rather surprising and unexpected increase in my energy levels, leading to a very gradual return to exercise, building up slowly over an extended period of time. The results were hardly overnight. But two years later, I had lost well over 30 pounds. And not only did I keep the weight off, I was the most fit I had ever been in my life. At 42 years old, I competed in the Ultraman World Championships, a grueling three-day uber-endurance triathlon circumnavigating the Big Island of Hawaii that involves 6.2 miles of swimming, 260 miles of cycling and culminates with a 52.4-mile double marathon run. I placed 11th overall and was the third-fastest American. To top it off, Men's Fitness magazine recently named me one of the "25 Fittest Guys in the World." (Not that I actually believe I deserve such an honor!) Quite an extreme contrast from that day I looked in the mirror. I'm not advocating that everyone should test himself or herself so severely. But my point is that change starts with a decision followed by baby steps along a new, consistent trajectory that, over time, can lead to dramatic results. I'm nothing special. I'm not a professional athlete. I'm just a normal family guy. But if I could experience such a vast transformation in my own life, I know with certainty that everybody has within himself the

Question: Who named Roll one of the 25 Fittest Guys in the World?

Question: Who  was the most fit he'd ever been?

Question: What advice does Rich Roll give?

Question: who named him 25 fittest guy?

Question: At what age was Roll in the worst shape?

Question: Who was one of the "25 Fittest Guys in the World?

Question: Who was Approaching 40?

Question: what did roll say?

Question: Who was named the "25 Fittest Guys in the World"?

Question: What happened after two years?

Question: What did Rich Roll says?

Question: What did he do to become fit?

Question: when was he named one of the 25 Fittest

Question: Who is approaching 40?

Question: who was in the worst shape

Question: Who was named one of the 25 fittest guys in the world?

Answer: Men's Fitness magazine's

Answer: Rich Roll

Answer: The power rests within yourself to enact any change in your life you desire.

Answer: Men's Fitness

Answer: 40 years old,

Answer: Rich Roll,

Answer: Rich Roll

Answer: called himself "fat, unhappy and fed up."

Answer: Rich Roll,

Answer: lost well over 30 pounds.

Answer: called himself "fat, unhappy and fed up."

Answer: seven-day fruit and vegetable juice cleanse (during which time I weaned myself off caffeine), followed by an entirely plant-based nutrition program

Answer: 2009,

Answer: Rich Roll

Answer: Rich Roll

Answer: Rich Roll,

Summary:
Rich Roll: Approaching 40, "I was in the worst shape of my life"
Two years later, he was the most fit he'd ever been .
This year, Men's Fitness named Roll one of the "25 Fittest Guys in the World"
To become fit, set a specific goal, be consistent and take it one day at a time, he says .


Editor's note: Robert J. Shiller is a professor of economics at Yale University. This op-ed is based on his book with George Akerlof, "Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, and Why It Matters for Global Capitalism." Akerlof is a 2001 Nobel laureate in economics and professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley. Robert Shiller says basic psychogical factors led to excesses which have devastated the economy. (CNN) -- President Obama's National Economic Council head Lawrence Summers noted in his speech March 13 that the economic crisis has led to an "excess of fear" that must be reversed. To understand the role fear plays in the current crisis, we must understand the role of human psychology. John Maynard Keynes thought psychology was the major cause of economic booms as well as busts, though this aspect of his work is now largely forgotten. He said people's economic decisions, in both good times and bad times, are largely, ultimately, if indirectly, driven by animal spirits, primitive psychological tendencies. In a recently published book, George Akerlof and I identified three animal spirits that played critical roles in the current economic meltdown. They are confidence, bad faith and storytelling. Let's first consider confidence and its dictionary meaning. Confidence means complete and secure trust. But trust goes beyond the rational use of information that is usually considered in economic theory. Trust is largely an emotion. Indeed we saw the role of vivid emotions in the stock and housing market booms that brought on our current problems. Trust is a state of mind that is the opposite of vigilance. People were purchasing and selling complex financial instruments without looking carefully at them. This trust is broken. The second animal spirit that came into play was bad faith. With so many trusting people, an uglier side of human nature became prominent. The temptation for smart promoters was overwhelming. Questionable practices boomed, and regulators failed to step in, because of the view, taken from economists, that private markets would be self-policing. Investors would only put their money at increased risk if they were duly compensated by higher expected returns. Thus, there was little worry about laxity of regulation in securities and real estate markets. But, this self-policing view did not consider that these investors might be overconfident. There is a myth that capitalism produces what people really want, as long as firms can make a profit. But, instead, more generally, it produces what people think they want, as long as firms can make a profit. True, unregulated capitalism will produce good medicines that cure our ills. But unregulated capitalism will also produce snake oil that people think they want, but does not cure our ills. (To guard against the production of such things, the federal government established the Food and Drug Administration in 1906.) The problem of snake oil has special relevance for financial assets, which are only pieces of paper. Most investors can surmise their value only from what others, such as accountants and rating agencies, tell them. These accounting and rating agencies also have their own incentives. And those incentives have not been fully aligned with the public's interest. And so when people are overconfident, financial markets produce assets that take advantage of that overconfidence. If unprotected by effective regulation, people will be sold snake oil assets. Just recently an industry arose, in Wall Street and beyond, to produce them. A third animal spirit bolstered the previous two. People act and think and live according to stories, especially human interest stories, not usually abstract calculation. That goes for their personal decisions. But there is also always a story, usually with some grain of truth and human interest, about the economy. These stories are often overly exuberant, on the one side, or overly pessimistic on the other. Ten years ago we had the story of the dot-com millionaires. Most recently we believed alchemists of financial engineering were packaging risky financial assets to make them safe. People were overconfident. And markets took advantage of their beliefs to sell them

Question: Basic psychological factors are key to to what?

Question: Who said that the government must aim for full employment and widely available credit?

Question: Who says that the government has a role in preventing fraud from being sold to the public?

Question: What is Robert Shiller known for?

Question: What is Shiller's first name?

Answer: excesses

Answer: Robert Shiller

Answer: Robert Shiller

Answer: professor of economics at Yale University.

Answer: Robert

Summary:
Robert Shiller: Economic boom gave rise to schemes that relied on trust .
He says basic psychological factors are key to restoring confidence .
Government has a role in preventing fraud from being sold to the public, he says .
Shiller: Government must aim for full employment and widely available credit .


Editor's note: Roland S. Martin, a CNN political analyst, is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith," and the forthcoming book, "The First: President Barack Obama's Road to the White House." He is a commentator for TV One Cable Network and host of a one-hour Sunday morning news show.

As a columnist, I'm used to writing things that offend other folks. It comes with the job. And there are times when I have responded to what other folks in the media will say and write. Again, it's just what we do.

There have been a number of things I've read and heard over the past few months, but one that has totally ticked me off is the recent column by ESPN's Rick Reilly in the March 22 issue of ESPN The Magazine.

Reilly uses his column to personally attack Greg Wise, the boys head basketball coach at Jack Yates High School in Houston, Texas. In the despicable piece, Reilly tries to link Wise with a fight in the parking lot after Yates destroyed archrival Booker T. Washington. Apparently shots were fired, and in Reilly's world, it's all tied to Yates beating them 132-68.

So I wonder if Reilly blames Gary Williams for Maryland upsetting No. 4 ranked Duke, this leading to fans going bonkers -- some say riot -- and 28 people getting arrested.

I've seen folks fight after one-point losses; that's just what happens when dumb folks talk trash in the parking lot. They either duke it out with fists, or these days, pull out a gun to make their point.

Reilly then has the gall to say that the school district in Houston needs to intervene to "stop" Wise, even suggesting that Yates Principal Ronald Mumphery should "grow a pair." So what do you propose Rick? Tell him not to blow other teams out? So the next time we see a 59-0 or 77-0 score in football, are we to scold the coach and tell him he will be suspended if his teams keeps scoring points?

Should Bob Stoops have been put on administrative leave when his Sooners destroyed my Aggies 77-0? In fact, last year Oklahoma beat my Aggies 65-10. Hey, Rick, wasn't 45, 50, 60 or even 70 enough for Stoops? Why 77 points?

The Reillys of the world will remark that, "Oh, these are poor high school students. Their self-esteem will be hurt by this." Bullcrap, Rick. Yes, Yates has blown teams out by 50, 60 and even 100 points. When you're good, it happens.

Let me be clear: I'm not objective on this issue. I graduated from Yates in 1987, where I attended the Magnet School of Communications. I watched Yates in 1985 win the football state championship by going undefeated and blowing out teams every week. That team set a state record for most points and set about another 20 records. They were just as dominating in football as this year's basketball team.

What wimps like Reilly object to is Wise teaching his team to press, press and press. Yates used this strategy to win the Class 4A state championship last year, and this weekend will try to win another title. They play all 15 guys and rotate them in and out. They wear the opposing team out, forcing them to commit turnover after turnover. On the side of their championship rings is the slogan, "32 minutes of hell." It's similar to what Nolan Richardson's Arkansas teams were nicknamed, "40 minutes of hell.'

Guys like Reilly love to jump on the poor souls campaign. But I learned a long time ago that when you put on your uniform and lace 'em up, you stand a chance of getting your butt kicked. That's all a part of the game.

What guys like Reilly also don't understand is that their words matter. And by writing such a horrible piece about Wise, he is

Question: What is Roland's last name?

Question: Who wrote a column blasting coach?

Question: What did Rick Reilly blast in the column?

Answer: Martin,

Answer: Rick Reilly

Answer: Greg Wise, the boys head basketball coach at Jack Yates High School in Houston, Texas.

Summary:
Roland Martin's old high school has nation's best basketball team .
Rick Reilly of ESPN wrote a column blasting coach for running up the score .
Roland Martin says there's nothing wrong with the way team plays .


Editor's note: Ronald F. Ferguson is Senior Lecturer in Education and Public Policy at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and the Harvard Kennedy School. His most recent book is "Toward Excellence with Equity: An emerging vision for closing the achievement gap," published by Harvard Education Press. He is the creator of the Tripod Project for School Improvement and also the faculty co-chair and director of the Achievement Gap Initiative at Harvard University.

Ronald Ferguson says parents can play a key role in improving their children's education.

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Raising the quality of teaching and learning in American schools is a priority. It receives a great deal of attention in our national discourse and should receive more.

Test scores and graduation rates are improving faster in other nations than in the United States and this threatens our quality of life in a competitive world.

In addition, achievement gaps between racial groups in the United States remain large. The social and political vitality of the nation may depend on closing these racial gaps. Blacks and Hispanics are doing better than in the past compared to whites, but still not nearly good enough.

Making schools better should be only one part of our national strategy. Life at home has been a relatively neglected topic and needs to come out of the shadows.

Especially in churches, neighborhood organizations, families and informal social networks, helping parents do their best needs to be as big a priority as achieving excellent schools.

This goes beyond public policies. I am talking about changes in mindsets and lifestyles in a national social and cultural movement to close achievement gaps between groups -- a movement to achieve excellence with equity.

More reading at home is a place to start. I present data in my recent book based on a large sample of students in elementary and secondary schools from several states.

Black and Hispanic students reported less leisure reading at home compared to whites, watched television more, were much more likely to have televisions in their bedrooms and (perhaps as a consequence) were more prone to become sleepy at school. Also, blacks and Hispanics, including those with college-educated parents, reported fewer books in their homes than whites whose parents had fewer years of schooling.

However, life at home helps shape academic outcomes long before children begin reading books. Family-level supports in the first two years of life help predict achievement years later, in elementary school.

Beginning soon after birth, the most supportive mothers teach the joy of living and learning, through lots of active, encouraging, verbal and nonverbal communication. They engage actively in helping children learn to walk and talk and to explore their new world and manipulate their toys and other objects.

Such mothers exist in large numbers in every racial group. Nonetheless, in a recent study by Harvard's Richard Murnane and co-authors, differences in mother-child interaction patterns like these were found to account for one-third of the black-white gap in math and English skills at the beginning of kindergarten -- and one-quarter at the end of third grade.

As children get older, highly responsive parents spend time with children, look for ways to be helpful and encourage them to voice their opinions. They are good listeners and they teach their children that they have a right to be heard and that people in positions of authority can sometimes be persuaded. The same parents can also be demanding, providing rules and structure and holding children consistently accountable for their behavior.

Professor Jelani Mandara of Northwestern University found in a nationally representative sample that students who achieved the highest test scores among blacks, Hispanics and whites had parents who were both responsive and demanding.

According to the study, white parents were much more likely to be both responsive and demanding than black and Hispanic parents; whereas black parents, in particular, were often highly demanding, but tended not to be as responsive in the ways the study measured. Among early adolescents, differences along these dimensions helped account for the higher test scores of whites as compared with blacks and Hispanics.

Findings like the above should be part of the conversation among black and Hispanic

Question: What is improving?

Question: Whose achievement has been improving?

Question: What will the vitality of the U.S. depend on?

Answer: Test scores and graduation rates

Answer: Blacks and Hispanics

Answer: closing these racial gaps.

Summary:
Ronald Ferguson: Vitality of U.S. may depend on closing racial achievement gaps .
He says achievement of black and Hispanic students is improving .
He says further progress could come if parents were more responsive to children .
Ferguson: Harvard has started a program to improve quality of parenting .


Editor's note: Roya Hakakian is the author of "Journey from the Land of No: A Girlhood Caught in Revolutionary Iran." Her web site is http://www.royahakakian.com/live/. Roya Hakakian says she lived through an earlier moment when Iranians thought freedom was at hand. (CNN) -- Since last Saturday, the images of Neda Agha Soltan, the young woman who died on the streets of Tehran, keep playing before my eyes. When I don't look at the clip on my computer, it runs on its own in my mind's eye. What has me so riveted is not entirely empathy, the intuitive human response the images are bound to stir in everyone. There is also something less noble at work in me, an obsession with seeing my own face upon hers. Each time I see her die, I die along with her. I, too, was born and raised in Iran. My coming-of-age years coincided with the Iranian revolution of 1979. I, too, was on the streets, watching and rooting for the demonstrators. Nothing seemed more natural, more compelling than being on the streets, calling for freedom, breathing the intoxicating, the dangerously euphoric Tehran air. I was 12 in 1978, yet I was as undaunted as any adult. Nothing, least of all my pleading parents, could keep me away from the rooftops at 9 p.m. Amid the night's dark, where the crowds were as indiscernible as ghosts, the shouts of "Allah-o-akbar" rose from every rooftop like smoke rising from an invisible bonfire. We were all victims of the flames and the very arsonists at once. We were burning in the fire of our own making. Thirty years hence that fire still burns in Iran, because moments before her death, Neda Agha Soltan cried: "I'm on fire!" I am entranced by her because she and I are the only two possibilities of the dictatorial narrative: Death or escape. She died. I escaped. I live. And because I live I cannot escape her death -- the memory of her large eyes languidly drifting to one side, then freezing upon the abyss. Survival of this kind brings its own eternal damnation: A bifurcated existence lived in the here and now, but perpetually haunted by there and then. Making peace with the past would have been easier, if only the essence of that past had not been in doubt, if its dignity were intact. But in my first American ride in my first American taxi cab, I learned the staggering counter-narrative that I would hear again and again, dominating the western perceptions of Iran, when the driver asked: "So, where are you from?" "I come from Iran," I said, in broken English. "Eeran," he asked with uncertainty. "Eeeran?" Then passing his fingertips across his throat like a knife, he said, "Eeran ... Khomeini?" In that, 2,500 years of civilization was reduced to one vile name and the invocation of a throat being slit. It did not take long for me to learn that between the Iran that I knew and the Iran that Americans knew was a discrepancy as vast as the waters that separated us. I soon learned that the images of a fist-throwing mob of angry men and darkly veiled women burning the Uncle Sam effigies were the only images that most Americans had of Iran. Those images had little in common with the Iran I knew -- greater in numbers and in the grip of the same fist-throwing crowds. With Neda's death, the Iran I know finally has a face. The sequence of her death is the sequence of our nation's struggle in the past 30 years: The democratic future that 1979 was to deliver collapsing, then trails of blood -- that of so many executed or assassinated -- streaming across its bright promise. The film of Neda's death is the abbreviated history of contemporary Iran. If history is a contest among competing narratives and icons, let the image of a young woman lying on the ground

Question:
what did Roya say
What does Roya say?
When was the revolution in Iran?
What did Roya Hakakian say?
what did Hakakian say

Answer: she lived through an earlier moment when Iranians thought freedom was at hand.

Answer: she lived through an earlier moment when Iranians thought freedom was at hand.

Answer: 1979.

Answer: she lived through an earlier moment when Iranians thought freedom was at hand.

Answer: she lived through an earlier moment when Iranians thought freedom was at hand.

Summary:
Roya Hakakian: I was a girl in Iran during the revolution of 1979 .
She says she saw the hopes of democracy and freedom quashed .
Hakakian: Join me in praying for Neda and other fallen Iranians .


Editor's note: Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board and a nationally syndicated columnist. Read his column here. Ruben Navarrette says hate crimes should be punished severely because they're aimed at society as a whole. SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- To think there are some people who still argue that the law shouldn't categorize some offenses as hate crimes and allow for enhanced criminal penalties. They claim that all sorts of crimes are motivated by hate, and to separate some from others elevates some victims over others and amounts to the state policing thoughts and feelings. They also fear that politicians and institutions are simply yielding to political correctness, liberal pressure groups and identity politics. My view is that hate crimes deserve special punishment because they don't just victimize whoever they're aimed at; they're intended to send a message, and they terrorize the whole society. That debate might have been settled Wednesday at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, where hate was on display. A shooting left one man dead: Stephen Tyrone Johns, a six-year veteran of the museum's security staff who, according to museum director Sara Bloomfield, "died heroically in the line of duty." The alleged assailant is James von Brunn, a Holocaust denier who created an anti-Semitic Web site. The 88-year-old often challenged the authenticity of "The Diary of Anne Frank," the book about a teenage girl living in Amsterdam during the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands. So it was probably no coincidence that the shooting occurred on the same day the museum had scheduled a play based on a fictional meeting between Anne Frank and Emmett Till, a martyr of the civil rights movement. Von Brunn also had longstanding ties to white supremacist groups, according to authorities. These outfits flourish in bad times because they give underperformers something really valuable: convenient scapegoats for their troubles, failures and shortcomings. Without that, these misfits might actually have to look in the mirror and take responsibility for their own lives. Although these groups are properly categorized as "hate groups" by organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, what also fuels them are things like fear and insecurity. Nowadays, their targets are often Latinos, especially immigrants. But, before that and for much of the history of this country, the targets have been African-Americans. And, for much of the history of the world, they have been Jews. And that prejudice hasn't gone away. Consider what the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the former Chicago, Illinois, pastor whose relationship with Barack Obama became an issue in the presidential election, recently told the Virginia newspaper, the Daily Press, when asked if he speaks to Obama. "Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me," Wright said in an apparent reference to some of Obama's aides. Wright later said he misspoke and meant to refer to "Zionists." A researcher for the Southern Poverty Law Center has said her group had a thick file on von Brunn going back 20 years and that he had become a "hardcore neo-Nazi." Von Brunn blamed a six-year prison term he once served -- for the attempted kidnapping of Federal Reserve board members in 1981 -- on "a Negro jury," "Jew/Negro attorneys" and "a Jew judge," according to his Web site. In documents read at trial, von Brunn wrote that his goal was to "deport all Jews and blacks from the white nations." Also, on his Web site, there's a message lamenting how "bit by bit government institutions and Congressmen fell into JEW hands -- then U.S. diplomacy, businesses, resources and manpower came under Jew control." You get the picture. It's no mystery what this guy is, to anyone but himself. His court-appointed lawyer from the Federal Reserve case said von Brunn, a veteran, considers himself a patriot. He's no such thing. That concept is best defined as love for one's country, not hatred for everyone else. It's

Question: Who does Navarrette say have been targets of haters?

Question: Who are targets of haters?

Question: Who has been targets of hate?

Question: What should be punished more severly?

Question: What does Navarrette say should be punished more severely?

Question: What does Navarrette say hate crimes terrorizes as a whole?

Question: Who says hate crimes should be punished more severely?

Question: What terrorize society was a whole?

Answer: Latinos,

Answer: Latinos, especially immigrants.

Answer: Latinos,

Answer: hate crimes

Answer: hate crimes

Answer: society

Answer: Ruben Navarrette

Answer: hate crimes

Summary:
Ruben Navarrette: Hate crimes should be punished more severely .
He says hate crimes terrorize society as a whole .
Navarrette: Latinos, blacks and Jews have all been targets of haters .
He says Obama is right to urge constant vigilance against hate .


Editor's note: Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board, a nationally syndicated columnist and a regular contributor to CNN.com. Read his column here. Ruben Navarrette Jr. says President Felipe Calderon's war on drugs remains a noble battle for the soul of Mexico. SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- It has nothing to do with Michael Jackson or Sarah Palin, but there's a big story brewing south of the border to which Americans should pay close attention. Like a monster that refuses to die, Mexico's once-disgraced Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, made a convincing comeback in last weekend's midterm elections. The PRI recaptured its majority in the 500-member Chamber of Deputies and won five of six governorships up for grabs. The rival National Action Party, or PAN, which had controlled the legislative branch since 2000, suffered heavy losses. German Martinez, president of the PAN, resigned this week after taking responsibility for the electoral failures. Political observers on both sides of the border are calling the elections results a no-confidence vote in the Mexican economy and a significant rebuke to President Felipe Calderon's admirable but all-consuming war against the drug cartels. Calderon -- who is in the PAN -- is halfway through a six-year term, so he wasn't on the ballot. The presidency is next on the ballot in 2012, and observers think that the fact that the PRI aced its midterms sets the party up nicely to accomplish something that seemed unthinkable just a few years ago: retake the top job that it held for much of the 20th century -- 71 years, to be precise -- through corruption and intimidation. In 2000, the PAN's Vicente Fox broke that streak and reintroduced democracy in Mexico. Calderon squeaked out a narrow victory against a third-party candidate in 2006. The Harvard-educated lawyer and economist immediately and bravely took the fight to drug lords across the country, unleashing the military in a conflict that has so far killed more than 10,000 Mexicans with no end in sight. And there are now serious issues -- as spelled out this week in The Washington Post -- involving allegations of torture, forced disappearances and other abuse by the Mexican military as it seeks to retaliate for the killing of soldiers and other terrorist acts committed by the drug cartels. The Obama administration, which has pledged to support Calderon's drug war, would no doubt like to put an end to this alleged behavior before paying out the remainder of the $1.4 billion in aid to Mexico that Congress approved in the Merida Initiative. The trouble is that President Obama has been reluctant to make human rights demands of an adversary such as Iran, which could make it hard to lean on a friend such as Mexico. And as Mexican human rights activists point out, the U.S. government is in a difficult position to preach against torture given that it is accused of using it in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Still, Calderon's war remains a noble battle for the soul of Mexico. And there's evidence that the drug cartels are feeling the pinch. Unable to move their product to customers in Canada and the United States, the cartels are growing desperate. The Calderon government is seizing so much of the product and arresting or killing so many drug traffickers, that profits are slipping. The drug lords are forced to import more guns from the United States at higher prices and channel more drug shipments to Mexican customers, who pay lower prices than the cartels could charge Americans if the drugs were making their way north. This is bad news for the traffickers. But it's great news for the Mexican people, even if they don't know it. Judging from reports in the Mexican press, many Mexicans -- while supportive of the drug war -- think it ultimately will fail, and they're tired of the violence. Many fault Calderon for, in a popular metaphor, "stirring the hornet's nest." Meanwhile, although the PRI didn't explicitly campaign on a platform of being anti-drug war, the implied message was that

Question: What are drug dealers feeling?

Question: What does Ruben Navarrette Jr. say?

Question: Who faults Calderon for stirring up violence with the war on drugs?

Question: What is the name of the Mexican leader?

Answer: the pinch.

Answer: President Felipe Calderon's war on drugs remains a noble battle for the soul of Mexico.

Answer: Ruben Navarrette Jr.

Answer: President Felipe Calderon's

Summary:
Mexican leader Felipe Calderon may face defeat in 2012 after PRI makes comeback .
Some Mexicans fault Calderon for stirring up violence with war on drugs .
Calderon should address problems and press ahead, Ruben Navarrette Jr. says .
Evidence points to drug traffickers feeling the pinch, Navarrette says .


Editor's note: Ruben Navarrette is a nationally syndicated columnist and a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune. Read his column here. Ruben Navarrette asks whether Obama's cool, calm demeanor will be a plus in negotiating with world leaders. SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- Make no mistake, Barack Obama is one cool customer. Now, after the last debate, it seems all but certain that the Iceman cometh to the White House. Radio talk show hosts and rank-and-file Republicans spent the last few weeks pleading with John McCain to take the gloves off and take the fight to Obama. How's that working out, folks? In this week's match-up, Obama snatched the gloves out of McCain's hands and slapped him silly with them. I suppose the hope was that Obama would get rattled and make a mistake. But Obama doesn't get rattled or make many mistakes. I still have no idea what type of president Obama would make. But he's an extraordinary politician. In fact, he may even be better than Bill Clinton who, while he had the IQ and EQ, also had the burden of a legendary red-hot temper. Obviously, it takes a lot to get under Obama's skin. McCain sure tried. Maybe this is the guy we want negotiating with world leaders. Maybe after eight years of George W. Bush stubbornness, on the heels of eight years of Clinton emotiveness, we need to send out for ice. In a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, 58 percent of those who watched the debate said Obama did the better job and 31 percent said that about McCain. That makes three skins for Obama. In earlier polls, 54 percent of those who watched thought Obama won the second debate, and 51 percent thought he won the first one. This week, McCain turned in his best performance of the debates, and the first 30 minutes -- with McCain bringing up Obama's problematic encounter with the now famous Joe the Plumber; and the quip about how he isn't Bush and how Obama should have run four years ago -- were near flawless for the Republican.  iReport.com: Are you Joe the Plumber? Get out your plunger and share your thoughts McCain put Obama on the defensive, and it showed. If McCain had been that aggressive throughout the first two debates -- firm but not necessary unlikable -- we might be looking at a different race right now. But, over the next hour, Obama regained his stride and eventually dominated the exchange.  And, in the end, with his sarcastic crack about school vouchers -- "Because there's not enough vouchers; therefore, we shouldn't do it, even though it's working. I got it." -- McCain was profoundly unlikable. So said the polls. In the CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, 70 percent of debate watchers found Obama more likable. Only 22 percent said that about McCain. McCain's supporters wanted him to bring up some of the allegedly shady characters from Obama's circle of acquaintances that give some Americans pause and lead them to question the Democrat's values. There are good reasons to have that conversation, and bad ones. A friend and fellow journalist told me Obama's Chicago posse was important because it formed "the political womb where the fetal Obama grew into a politician. ... That tells us who he is and what either he believes himself or is at least willing to tolerate as president." Frankly, that argument makes a lot more sense than what many of the Obama haters are saying about how these "Friends of Barack" prove he is a couple of flag pins short of being a full-blooded American. That's nonsense. For instance, with William Ayers -- the unrepentant domestic terrorist who Obama first claimed was just a guy who lived in his neighborhood but with whom we now know the Illinois senator had a more substantial relationship --  the issue isn't Obama's patriotism but his truthfulness. Still, it was obviously a mistake for McCain to bring up Ayers during

Question:
What was Obama's attitude?
Who did McCain attack?
What did McCain try to do?
What does America need?

Answer: cool, calm demeanor

Answer: Obama.

Answer: get under Obama's skin.

Answer: to send out for ice.

Summary:
Ruben Navarrette: McCain tried to get under Obama's skin with attacks .
Obama remained cool and wound up ending strongly in the debate, he says .
Navarrette says Ayers attacks backfired even though issue is legitimate .
America may need the cool-headedness of Barack Obama, he says .


Editor's note: Rudy Ruiz founded RedBrownandBlue.com, a site featuring multicultural political commentary, hosts a nationally syndicated Spanish-language radio show; and wrote a guide to success for immigrants ("¡Adelante!" published by Random House). He is co-founder and president of Interlex, an advocacy marketing agency based in San Antonio, Texas. Rudy Ruiz says people hold on to their views despite the evidence for fear of being labeled a flip-flopper. SAN ANTONIO, Texas (CNN) -- As people shout over each other and tune out diverging views in town hall meetings, the health care debate is proving to be symptomatic of a major ailment threatening our nation: A contagious culture of closed-mindedness threatens to suffocate our progress as a society. Why has it become so difficult to even consider changing our minds about important issues? Here's my diagnosis. Increasingly, the willingness to change one's position on political issues has been misread as a mark of weakness rather than a product of attentive listening and careful deliberation. During the 2004 Presidential campaign, the successful branding of John Kerry as a flip-flopper doomed his bid. Fear of "flip-flopper syndrome" is apparently catching like the flu, because today politicians are not alone in their determination to adhere to partisan positions despite the changing needs of our nation. Nearly everyone's so reluctant to appear wishy-washy that they stand firm even when the evidence is against their views. Three factors exacerbate this paralysis by lack of analysis: labels, lifestyles and listening. First, the labels ascribed to many potential policy tools render sensible options taboo, loading what could be rational, economic or social measures with moral baggage. This narrows our choices, hemming in policy makers. Any proposal including the words "government-run" elicits cries of "socialism" and "communism." Any argument invoking the words "God" or "moral" sparks accusations of "right-wing extremism," "fascism," or "Bible-thumping." Instead of listening to each other's ideas, we spot the warning label and run the other way. Second, our lifestyles favor knee-jerk reactions. The way we think, work and live in the Digital Age demands we quickly categorize information without investing time into rich interaction, research and understanding. We're hesitant to ask questions because we don't have time to listen to the long, complicated answers that might follow. And we lack the time to fact-check competing claims. In our haste, it's easier to echo our party's position than drill down, questioning whether party leaders are motivated by our best interests or the best interests of their biggest contributors. Third, we tend to listen only to like-minded opinions as media fragmentation encourages us to filter out varying perspectives. If you're a liberal, you avoid FOX News. If you're a conservative you revile MSNBC. The dynamic is even more pronounced online, where a niche media source can be found for any outlook. This silences the opportunity for meaningful dialogue and deliberation that might lead to reformulating positions, forging sustainable compromises, and developing consensus crucial to moving our nation forward on complex issues. So how can we overcome this challenge, starting with the health care debate? How do we open our minds to the possibility that we could actually learn from somebody else? Here's my prescription. For starters, we should eschew the notion that changing our minds is a character flaw. To the contrary, experts believe it's a manifestation of higher intelligence. Renowned psychologist Stuart Sutherland wrote in "Irrationality," his seminal 1992 book: "The willingness to change one's mind in the light of new evidence is a sign of rationality not weakness." To further free our minds, we should aggressively treat the three Ls: Let's lose the labels: from "flip-flopper" to "commie," from "fear-monger" to "right-wing nut job." Trash the diatribe; mull the ideas. Let's engage in some

Question: Who said that its become unfashionable to have an open mind about issues?

Question: What labels obscure the real choices?

Question: Waht is a sign of rationality?

Question: What labels does Rudy Ruiz use?

Question: Labels like what obscure the real choices?

Question: What has become unfashionable?

Question: What is a sign of rationality?

Question: Who said "It's become unfashionable to have an open mind about issues?"

Question: What does he say is a sign of rationality?

Question: What says Rudy Ruiz?

Answer: Rudy Ruiz

Answer: flip-flopper.

Answer: willingness to change one's mind in the light of new evidence

Answer: "right-wing extremism," "fascism,"

Answer: ascribed to many potential policy tools render sensible options taboo,

Answer: to appear wishy-washy

Answer: "The willingness to change one's mind in the light of new evidence

Answer: Rudy Ruiz

Answer: willingness to change one's mind in the light of new evidence

Answer: people hold on to their views despite the evidence for fear of being labeled a flip-flopper.

Summary:
Rudy Ruiz: It's become unfashionable to have an open mind about issues .
He says labels like "socialism" and "fascism" obscure the real choices .
He says it's a sign of rationality to be open to the evidence .
Ruiz: Let's listen to each other and take into consideration wider range of viewpoints .


Editor's note: Rudy Ruiz founded RedBrownandBlue.com, a site featuring multicultural political commentary. He is host of a nationally syndicated Spanish-language radio show and wrote a guide to success for immigrants ("¡Adelante!" published by Random House). He is co-founder and president of Interlex, an advocacy marketing agency based in San Antonio, Texas. Rudy Ruiz says the lives of U.S. presidents can make them positive role models for students. SAN ANTONIO, Texas (CNN) -- Perhaps we got too used to living in a nation where the president inevitably becomes persona non grata. Maybe after the Clinton and Bush years, we forgot how to give a president a chance to serve not just as a punching bag but also as a role model. Have we become so disenchanted and polarized we can't give our own president a chance to teach our children something about what it takes to succeed? As a small-town boy, I drew inspiration from presidential biographies. As I got lost in the adventures of Teddy Roosevelt, the spirit of George Washington and the ideals of Thomas Jefferson, I found kernels of America's greatness. In those pages, I unearthed a yearning to dream beyond my surroundings, to strive for more, to seek a way to contribute to our nation. Many of the leaders, including Abraham Lincoln, born in a log cabin in Kentucky, ascended from humble beginnings on the wings of education to guide America forward. Devouring their stories, it ceased to matter where I was from or how far removed I was from the centers of power. With an education and a dream -- in America -- anything was possible. Whenever President Obama addresses our youth, he embodies the power of education. Education is the cornerstone of our democracy, the key to upward mobility, a linchpin to transforming whimsical dreams into actionable goals. Ask Bill Clinton. Raised by his widowed mother in Arkansas, he became a Rhodes Scholar. Look at Barack Obama. Emerging from a broken family, he built on degrees from Columbia and Harvard in his odyssey to the White House. Remember Dwight Eisenhower. Hailing from Kansas, he attended West Point on his way to heroism. From both sides of the aisle, education has propelled the career trajectories of our nation's leaders. Even if we disagree with a president's policies, we should accept he can serve as a role model in a broader way. For example, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Nobody would argue this was admirable. But Jefferson was also a great thinker, diplomat and strategist. He co-authored the Declaration of Independence and helped America become a global power by engaging Europe and transacting the Louisiana Purchase. Was he perfect? Of course not. Would we want our children to emulate his every action. No way. But has he been an inspirational role model over time? As a parent, I understand people's concerns about the concepts to which their children are exposed. But the content of the president's speech to students should assuage any worries regarding his motives. Clearly, his agenda is to inspire kids to make the most of education in building a better life, not to brainwash a generation to do his bidding. Pointing to his own experiences, as well as those of others from diverse and modest origins, his remarks convey the importance of personal responsibility, perseverance and education in fulfilling one's potential while contributing to our nation's future. The only way to argue with that is by confusing the issues, twisting the situation into something it was never intended to be. It's gotten so bad, some folks don't want their kids exposed to the president because they're afraid he'll teach them socialism. My answer is that even if he did plan to discuss socialism, they should let their child listen. Of course, the president wouldn't do that, but why is that my answer? Because, as another role model -- President Reagan -- once said: "All great change in America begins at the dinner table." In that light, the president's speech isn't a threat but an

Question: who drew inspiration from presidents

Question: what gives students positive messages?

Question: what can give students a positive message

Question: Inspiration was drawn from the lives of who?

Question: what does ruiz say?

Answer: Rudy Ruiz

Answer: lives of U.S. presidents

Answer: lives of U.S. presidents

Answer: U.S. presidents

Answer: Rudy

Summary:
Rudy Ruiz: After Clinton, Bush years, presidents aren't viewed as role models .
He says he drew inspiration from the lives of American presidents .
He says Obama and others show the power of education to improve society .
He says letting students hear Obama's speech can give them a positive message .


Editor's note: Sarah Hughes won the gold medal in figure skating at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah, and is a graduate of Yale University. Medalist Sarah Hughes says the Games are about excellence and unity. (CNN) -- What are the first thoughts that pop into your mind when you hear the word Olympics? Probably something synonymous with excellence, greatness, excitement, achievement. Maybe it's the striking image of Nadia Comaneci scoring a perfect 10 etched in your mind, or the experience of following Michael Phelps' quest to win a record-breaking eight gold medals last summer in Beijing, China. Or is it the thrill of watching the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team winning the gold medal in Lake Placid, stacked up against unimaginable odds, that occupies that space? I could go on and on, but whatever image the Olympics has for you is probably accompanied by a feeling of pride, happiness, joyfulness, maybe even a childlike glee. Sometimes it's the simple way you can sum up your response to the question -- and perhaps that's the point of asking the question -- but it would be foolish to ignore other aspects of the Games that contribute to making the event happen. Although the presence of public officials at host-city bids shows the International Olympic Committee that they are behind the bid and will be supportive, such appearances are not required. On Friday, President Obama, a Chicago, Illinois, resident for many years, will arrive in Copenhagen, Denmark (his wife is already there), to support and try to persuade the IOC voters in favor of the 2016 Chicago bid. Obama's visit to Copenhagen will make him the first U.S. president to attend an Olympic host-city vote. His visit will not be the first by a president (or prime minister) whose country went on to win a bid for the Games. British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his wife were in Singapore lobbying IOC members for the 2012 Summer Games host-city vote when London was awarded the event. Two years later, Russian President Vladimir Putin went to the host-city vote in Guatemala when Sochi, a relatively unknown city, won the right to host the 2014 Winter Games. The other 2016 contenders vying for votes from the 100-plus eligible members of the IOC are Madrid, Spain; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; and Tokyo, Japan. Michelle Obama, a lifelong Chicagoan enthusiastically championing the U.S. bid, is displaying her "Olympic spirit." On Monday, the eve of her visit to Copenhagen, she spoke of being ready to woo each voter individually if need be: "Gloves are off. I'm talking to everybody. That's what my schedule looks like." Sounding like an Olympic competitor already herself, she added that she didn't "think there's one person left off." It is easy to come to the conclusion that I might be biased, having won a gold medal in figure skating at the 2002 Salt Lake City Games, but I was an American and a fan long before those Games, and I will be one long after. The memories, unity and patriotism from the Salt Lake Games wasn't about any one particular thing but about all those little "things" coming together: the result of what the participants -- the fans, volunteers, competitors, coaches, moms, dads, sisters, brothers, cities and nations -- created by sharing the best we have to offer with one another. That's what the Olympics are about. They are about greatness, they are about excellence, but above all, the Games are about unity. In a September 10 letter to IOC members, Obama wrote about how he "sees the 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games as an extraordinary opportunity for America to renew our bonds of friendship and welcome the world to our shores with open arms." And on Friday, when Obama arrives in Copenhagen, he will be joined by Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, newly appointed Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and King Juan Carlos of Spain. Let the

Question: What are the Olympic Games about?

Question: Who is showing she shares the Olympic spirit?

Question: What are the games about?

Question: What is about excellence and unity in support of U.S. teams?

Question: Who is showing they share the Olympic spirit?

Answer: excellence and unity.

Answer: Michelle Obama,

Answer: excellence and unity.

Answer: the Games

Answer: Michelle Obama,

Summary:
Sarah Hughes: Obama is among other world leaders who have sought Olympics .
She says Games are about excellence and unity in support of U.S. teams .
She says Michelle Obama is showing she shares the Olympic spirit .


Editor's note: Saturday marks one year since Hamas' defeat of Fatah in the fierce struggle for control of Gaza. CNN correspondent Ben Wedeman has been covering the region for over 15 years. He reports from Gaza on daily life and reality over the past year in this fractious land. CNN's Ben Wedeman reports on the past year in Gaza, where people are safer but out of food, gas, and patience. GAZA CITY, Gaza (CNN)  -- "If you take pictures, I'll kill you! I'll kill you!" screamed a masked Fatah gunman, pointing his AK-47 assault rifle at my cameraman, Joe Duran. "Calm down! Calm down!" I shouted back at him, turning to Joe to tell him to put the camera down. Joe and I had ducked into a fruit and vegetable shop in Gaza City. We had been covering the funeral of a Fatah gunman killed in a clash with Hamas rivals when our third gunbattle of the day had broken out. The gunman left, much to everyone's relief, and I put my small video camera on the floor and pressed the button to record the constant roar of machine gun fire, which went on for more than half an hour. Earlier in the day, Joe and I were on a street corner videotaping Hamas militiamen when a jeep full of Fatah irregulars opened fire, just down the street from an elementary school. As guns blazed, schoolchildren ran for cover. I watched as shopkeeper Khadar Aliyan slammed shut the doors of his grocery store, the expression on his face one of fear and utter exasperation. "I'm going home," he told me. "I'm afraid. We're done for. It's never been this bad." It was violence like this, which we witnessed on December 2006, that reached a climax in the second week of June 2007. When it ended on June 14, 2007, with Hamas roundly defeating Fatah, Gaza went quiet. And quiet -- relative quiet, that is -- has been Hamas' biggest accomplishment since. No longer do you worry about being kidnapped. Gunbattles, though they can happen, are much less common. After last June's takeover (or coup d'etat, as Fatah supporters call it), Hamas quickly imposed law and order, tried to reacquaint Gaza's drivers with long-forgotten traffic regulations, launched a municipal cleanup campaign, and forced the release of kidnapped BBC journalist Alan Johnston, who had been held in captivity for almost six months. Chaos-weary Gazans applauded all of these initiatives. But the honeymoon ended quickly as reality sank in. Since Hamas won parliamentary elections in January 2006, and even more so since last year's takeover, Israel has tightened its siege of Gaza. Israel has restricted supplies of gasoline, diesel and electricity to Gaza, limited the amount of food and other goods entering the strip, and made it virtually impossible for manufacturers and farmers in Gaza to export anything to the outside world. Israeli officials say these measures are intended to pressure Hamas, which is on the U.S. government list of terrorist groups, to stop its members and other factions from firing mortars and rockets into Israel. Israel Defense Forces reports that 1,500 Qassam rockets were fired into Israel from Gaza in 2007, and 2,383 in the past six years. As a result, almost all of Gaza's factories have shut down and thousands of workers have lost their jobs. Between 70 and 80 percent of the population is dependent on food supplied by the United Nations Refugee Works Agency, set up after more than 700,000 Palestinians became refugees after the war that resulted in Israel's creation in 1948. Life in Gaza, never easy, in the last year has become a grinding daily struggle to make ends meet. For the vast majority of Gazans, it means they must spend much of their time trying to secure basic commodities. Such as cooking gas, which comes from Israel. In the past, when supplies were plentiful, it was sold from the back of trucks and donkey carts. Not

Question: Although it is safer for Gazans, what are they in desperate need of?

Question: what are the children running from

Question: what has hamas done to help

Question: what children are running from?

Question: what wedeman describes?

Question: Are children faced with gunfire violence?

Question: Who describes violence, gunbattles?

Answer: of food, gas, and patience.

Answer: guns

Answer: After last June's takeover (or coup d'etat, as Fatah supporters call it), Hamas quickly imposed law and order, tried to reacquaint Gaza's drivers with long-forgotten traffic regulations, launched a municipal cleanup campaign, and forced the release of kidnapped BBC journalist Alan Johnston,

Answer: guns

Answer: reports from Gaza on daily life and reality

Answer: As guns blazed, schoolchildren ran for cover.

Answer: CNN's Ben Wedeman

Summary:
Wedeman describes violence, gunbattles, fear before Hamas .
Reports on encounters with assault rifles, children running from gunfire last year .
Now, it's safer but Gazans desperate for gas, cooking fuel, jobs .
One woman: "Hamas hasn't done anything for us, nor has Fatah"


Editor's note: Simon Johnson, a former International Monetary Fund chief economist, is a professor at MIT Sloan School of Management and a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Peter Boone is chairman of Effective Intervention, a UK-based charity, and a research associate at the Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics. They run http://baselinescenario.com/, a global economy Web site. Simon Johnson, above, and Peter Boone say the U.S. could be in for a long period of virtually no growth. (CNN) -- Euphoria returns! Who could have guessed that Bank of America stock would rally 70 percent the week it learns the Feds are demanding new capital equal to nearly half the bank's market capitalization? The ongoing grim news -- on rising unemployment, continued (albeit slower) economic decline, and ordinary working Americans being hammered on all sides -- is being ignored by stock and commodity markets. Is America now back on track for growth? The answer to that is almost surely no. Rising stock markets don't necessarily mean a sharp recovery is under way. Consider the case of Japan in its first lost decade of the 1990s. After falling 63 percent from its peak in late 1989, the Nikkei staged a 32 percent rally in one month. It then remained volatile but around the same level for nearly 10 years -- because the return on assets and capital investors could earn proved so low throughout that economy. During the 1990s, Japan's banking system was burdened with bad loans that kept eating into profits and its nonfinancial companies had excess capacity that had to be wound down; these problems were made worse by a decline in the working population. The initial excess of capital, supplemented by high ongoing savings from households and corporations, kept interest rates low. Throughout this period the price/earnings ratio on stocks ranged from 30 to 50 (it's 51 today), compared with 15 to 20 in Europe and the United States. The logic was simple: With so little return available on all assets, local investors were willing to pay up for stocks even if the dividends were a paltry 1-2 percent. Does this sound familiar? We think so. The current rally in stocks marks one clear success -- the fear of a systemic collapse due to loss of confidence in our financial system has subsided. This is good news, and an important achievement of President Obama's team. However, our "turning Japanese" phase may just have begun. The "stress tests" that were just completed do not mark the renewed health of our banking system. We still have 22 percent of Americans with houses worth less than their mortgages, and there are parallel problems for commercial property and other sectors. Many bankruptcies are yet to come. Most publicly traded large homebuilders are deep in debt, yet they are burning cash and waiting to see if -- magically -- the two-year stock of unsold housing can somehow disappear. We've barely begun to downsize our auto industry, and the parts suppliers and dealers that go along with it, to reflect the lower level of consumer spending and scarcer availability of credit for the future. All of this is also true across much of Europe. In essence, Europe and the United States both are saddled with zombie banks (which don't really lend), zombie corporations (which don't grow), and a decline in the relative size of the working population (as more people try to retire). This "Japanese" scenario can persist for many years. The biggest risk now is that the Federal Reserve and the Treasury try to re-leverage our way out of a Japanese-style prolonged recession by flooding the economy with cheap credit -- like they did in 2002, but to an even greater degree. Cheap government finance for powerful banks is a great cocktail for re-election; running stress tests that weren't really stressful is a good indication this is where policy is heading. This time the money won't come from consumers (or from China, as it did after 2002); it will be American and European central

Question: What has been described as zombie?

Question: What is a zombie bank?

Question: Whose economy is suffering?

Question: What could the economy be in for a long period?

Question: What kind of banks is the article referring to?

Question: What Is  Johnson, Boone known for?

Question: Which country's economy suffered with similar problems?

Answer: corporations (which don't grow),

Answer: (which don't really lend),

Answer: U.S.

Answer: virtually no growth.

Answer: of America

Answer: They run http://baselinescenario.com/,

Answer: Japan

Summary:
Johnson, Boone: Stocks are rallying as if economy is out of the woods .
They say that's premature, and we could be in for a long period of stagnation .
Japan's economy suffered for years from similar problems, they say .
Johnson, Boone: We have zombie banks and zombie companies .


Editor's note: Since 2007, CNN and CNN.com have followed the story of Youssif, an Iraqi boy disfigured when he was burned by attackers. Today, CNN's Arwa Damon catches up with the boy and his family, now living in California where Youssif is undergoing treatment. Today Youssif goes to school in California and continues to have treatment to help his scars. LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Youssif stands on stage beaming as he belts out "Jingle Bell Rock," his tiny burned hands waving in sync with his classmates at Hamlin Street School. His mother, Zaineb, stands at the back, cradling his little sister, Aya, tears rolling down her face. "I am so proud of him," she says. "It reminds me of what he was like in Iraq when he used to sing in kindergarten. I felt for a moment that none of this had happened. My son was back, without fear, strong." Youssif spots us, and waves wildly. Little appears to remain of the sullen and withdrawn dark-eyed boy we first met in Baghdad more than a year ago. It has been almost two years since masked men in Baghdad doused Youssif, then just 4 years old, in gasoline and set him on fire. His mother still doesn't sleep at night. "I still blame myself. I should have protected him. Sometimes I say to myself that I wish it had happened to me, just not to him." Zaineb says, her voice starting to quiver. "If only I hadn't let him go out to play that day." Today Youssif plays freely, without fear. "Let's race" he shouts to his friend Brandon as the two boys dash across the schoolyard. A couple of minutes later the two are playfully jostling over a rubber ball. Youssif shrieks and bursts into laughter as the two play catch. "It's like this weight has been lifted off of me, off of him," his father, Wissam, says. "It's like we've left this dark, depressing state where we were consumed by Youssif and the attack that had happened. You know, it's so hard to see a child, my child, go through something like this. When I see him like this, I feel like he's coming back."  Watch more on Youssif's recovery » After CNN and CNN.com first reported Youssif's story in 2007, more than 12,000 CNN.com users contributed to a fund set up by the Children's Burn Foundation of Sherman Oaks California, enabling the boy and his family to travel to the United States for treatment. Youssif has undergone more than a dozen surgeries. Much of the thick scar tissue around his eyes, mouth and nose -- left by his treatment in Baghdad -- has been removed. He currently has yet another tissue expander in his left cheek, intended to stretch out "good skin" to be used to replace his scar tissue. Youssif has grown used to the sometimes painful treatments. "When I started this process of tissue expansion, I would have to chase him around the room," Dr. Peter Grossman, Youssif's surgeon, tells us as he injects more liquid into the expander. "We'd need three people to hold him down for these injections." Youssif will probably have many more surgeries stretched out over time. "The problem we have with Youssif is that every operation we do tends to heal well after surgery, but then a month after, he starts to form these really thick scars," Grossman said. "It's probably best at this time to let his body relax, let these scars mature over a period of a year or two years." Today, Youssif grimaces in pain but braves it alone, refusing to take his father's hand. "Seven or eight times put water," Youssif says back at home, explaining how the tissue expansion works. "I am not scared. It goes here," he says pointing to the scarring over his lip. He's not all

Question: What lies ahead for Youssif?

Question: Where was Youssif set on fire?

Question: Youssif was set on fire my masked men where?

Question: Who is being treated for burns and scars?

Answer: more surgeries stretched out over time.

Answer: Baghdad

Answer: Baghdad

Answer: Youssif

Summary:
Youssif continues to be treated in California for his burns, scars .
He is enrolled in school and learning English .
More surgeries lie ahead .
Boy was doused with gasoline, set on fire by masked men in Baghdad .


Editor's note: Since becoming State Department producer in 2000, Elise Labott has covered four secretaries of state and reported from more than 50 countries. Before joining CNN, she covered the United Nations. Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meet in Washington. WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi made the rounds in Washington just as President Obama's national security team shifted its attention to Pakistan. This week Secretary of Defense Williams Gates called the Afghan border with Pakistan the "epicenter of jihad." And the renewed focus on Pakistan suggests that Obama has a new role for Pakistan in the battle against al Qaeda and the Taliban. After all, in developing a strategy for "Afpak," Obama acknowledged the United States cannot win in Afghanistan without cooperation from Pakistan, the suspected hideout of Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders. Which is why the buzzword of both Qureshi and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this week was "partnership," as in the United States and Pakistan are united in a "strategic partnership" against a common enemy. Right now, the relationship between the two countries is less a partnership and more an uneasy marriage with a history fraught with decades of mutual mistrust and disappointment. In the late 1980s, the United States partnered with Pakistan to supply mujahedeen fighters with weapons and training to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. Then the United States abandoned the region, leaving the Pakistanis, in Clinton's words, "awash in drugs...and jihadists who had been trained up in conjunction with us." Now the Americans are back. But, rightly, the Pakistanis are wondering if this time they will stay. This week Qureshi urged the United States not to repeat history, but rather to articulate a "long-term commitment" for the region. That's exactly what the United States is trying to do with an aid package worth $1.5 billion a year for five years for social and economic development and with discretionary military spending. By building roads, schools and democratic institutions, the United States hopes to combat both Islamic extremism and anti-Americanism. In part the aid has had the opposite effect. Tough conditions attached to the aid to ensure the Pakistanis are fighting terrorism on their own soil have prompted fears and resentment about renewed -- and unwanted -- American influence. The military spending in the Kerry-Lugar legislation threatens to cut off assistance if Pakistan fails to crack down on extremists or uses the funding to attack neighboring countries, namely India. It requires Pakistan's cooperation in efforts to dismantle nuclear weapons networks operating in the country and demands Pakistan provides the information about its military budget and chain of command, all of which has given birth to grave concern in the military that the aid package is compromising Pakistan's sovereignty. The bill also makes reference to the southwestern city of Quetta and eastern town of Muridke. Both are believed to be hubs for al Qaeda and Taliban leaders, which suggests that the United States could target those cities for the kind of drone attacks which have drawn Pakistani ire. As the Pakistani parliament debates the bill, street protests over the aid have spread through the country. The fears about sovereignty have only been aggravated over U.S. plans to send hundreds more diplomats to its embassy in Islamabad. Washington says the additional staff is needed to distribute and monitor the aid, but it has all left Pakistanis humiliated and feeling like a child who needs a babysitter. Pakistan also wants more credit from the United States for decisive action it has taken against terrorists, including its recent offensive in the Swat Valley. The United States has been impressed by the Pakistani army's recent offensive against the Taliban in Swat. And it is encouraged that Pakistan is gearing up to launch a major offensive in Waziristan, believed to be a stronghold of both the Taliban and al Qaeda. But the conditions attached to the aid are a symptom of the United States' longstanding doubts about the Pakistanis' capacity to be a reliable partner it needs in the struggle against al Qaeda and the Taliban. Not only are there concerns about Pakistani intelligence

Question: What is description of U,S - Pakistan relationship?

Question: who is the foreign minister

Question: what is fraught with mistrust

Question: What is the U.S. aid package of $1.5 billion for?

Question: What is the purpose of $1.5 billions U.S. aid to Pakistan?

Answer: between the two countries is less a partnership and more an uneasy marriage with a history fraught with decades of mutual mistrust and disappointment.

Answer: Shah Mahmood Qureshi

Answer: relationship between the two countries

Answer: social and economic development

Answer: combat both Islamic extremism and anti-Americanism.

Summary:
U.S.-Pakistan relationship fraught with decades of mistrust and disappointment .
Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi asks U.S. for "long-term commitment"
U.S. aid package of $1.5 billion is for social and economic development .


Editor's note: Steve Clemons directs the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation and publishes The Washington Note, a popular political blog. Steve Clemons says the Nobel panel correctly decided Obama's approach to diplomacy holds great promise. WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Cynics will say that Oslo was jealous that Copenhagen, Denmark, scored a visit from President Obama, and giving him a Nobel was the only way to get him to Norway. But the Nobel Committee's decision to make Obama the only sitting U.S. president since Woodrow Wilson to receive the Nobel Peace Prize shows the committee's clear-headed assessment that Obama's "unclenched fist" approach to dealing with the world's most thuggish leaders has had a constructive, systemic impact on the world's expectations of itself. Obama has helped citizens all around the world -- including in the United States -- to want a world beyond the mess we have today in the Middle East and South Asia. They want a world where America is benign and positive, and where other leaders help in supporting the struggles of their people for better lives rather than securing themselves through crude power. Obama has found a way in this interconnected world of cell phones, Twitter, Facebook and other social networking to reach a majority of the world's citizens with his message of hope for a better world. He speaks past the dictators to regular people and has, on the whole, raised global political expectations about everything from climate change to nuclear nonproliferation in ways that no one in history has done before. Americans tend to look at everything from a U.S.-centric lens, and many woke up this morning shocked that Obama, who just saw a lot of his political capital wasted on trying to secure the 2016 Olympics for his hometown of Chicago, has gotten a fresh injection of sizzle to fill the Obama bubble. The world has been mesmerized by Obama since he started to run for the presidency. The battle between Hillary Clinton and Obama for the Democratic nomination did more to educate the rest of the world about real political choice -- and about a system in which no candidates had an automatic lock on victory -- than any USAID program could have achieved. Obama's decision to make the ulcerous Israeli-Palestinian negotiations one of the first foreign policy challenges of his administration, rather than the last, defied most seasoned analysts' expectations. His message to Iran's citizens, marking the Persian new year holiday of Nowruz, and his powerful and captivating speech in Cairo, Egypt, communicated to Muslims all around the world that their lives and their faith and their expectations for a better world were vital and as valid as any others. From his perch in the White House, Barack Obama affirmed the humanity of Muslims and told them that America does value Muslim lives. Obama's posture and rhetoric have reversed the collapse of hope and trust that the world's citizens had in America and stopped the degradation of America's image during the tenure of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney. Should a U.S. president get the Nobel Peace Prize if he's about to send more U.S. troops, armed drones, bombs, tanks and other military hardware into the war-ripped zones in Afghanistan? Or should Obama get the prize if he hasn't even succeeded in getting Israeli-Palestinian negotiations going? Or if he hasn't gotten Iran to drop its nuclear ambitions and to re-enter the international system on constructive terms? The answer is yes. I think that given how the odds were already so stacked against Obama on the global economic and security fronts, one can only be amazed at what this unlikely and fascinating president has done with "optics." The night before Obama's inauguration, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel accepted my congratulations and responded, "It's going to be tough, and right now we can only change the optics," meaning that political perceptions and appearances could be changed more quickly than hard realities. What is brilliant about Obama and why he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize is that he is a global leader who clearly saw the gains that could be made in changing "the optics" of the

Question: What has Obama changed?

Question: Who won the Peace Prize?

Question: what caused the collapse of hope?

Question: What did Clemons say?

Question: What does Steve Clemons say about Americans?

Question: What did he say about this?

Question: What has Obama's rhetoric done?

Answer: reversed the collapse of hope and trust that the world's citizens had in America

Answer: President Obama,

Answer: tenure of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney.

Answer: the Nobel panel correctly decided Obama's approach to diplomacy holds great promise.

Answer: tend to look at everything from a U.S.-centric lens,

Answer: the Nobel panel correctly decided Obama's approach to diplomacy holds great promise.

Answer: have reversed the collapse of hope and trust that the world's citizens had in America

Summary:
Steve Clemons: Many Americans shocked that Obama won Peace Prize .
He says the rest of the world sees how Obama has changed international tone .
He says Obama's rhetoric has "reversed the collapse of hope" in the world .


Editor's note: Steve Perry is the founder and principal of the Capital Preparatory Magnet School in Hartford, Connecticut, and author of "Man Up!: Nobody is Coming to Save Us," which offers solutions to problems in the black community. Steve Perry says a question from a parent started his journey to creating a top-performing school. HARTFORD, Connecticut (CNN) -- "Why do only rich kids get good schools?" I was the founder and director of a part-time out-of-school college preparatory program. The questioner was a parent; herself a victim of a dulled urban education. The statement was more of an indictment than question, and I had no answer. "Well, why can't this program be a school," she offered. The program sent 100 percent of our graduates to college. We served poor students who were the first generation in their families to attend college. We provided college preparation through a six-week summer program, after-school tutoring and in-school academic advising. That single mother's question came at the end of the summer program. This was always a tough time. As the kids said goodbye to their friends and the program's high expectations, we all looked at the school year with great trepidation. We knew that the students were returning to failed schools with very low expectations -- and results to match. Like that mom, I too wondered why wealth and whiteness are too often linked to quality education. Her question connected to a discussion that I'd been having with some colleagues during the summer program. All of the teachers in that program worked in failed urban schools. Many had tried to reform traditional urban schools. They'd started formal and informal programs, identified groups of kids and connected to parents. Each had had some success with some kids, but the conditions that led to the need to do something went unchanged. The question was raised at the end of our 2002 summer program. My first instinct was to begin down the path of opening an all-male minority charter school. In Connecticut, charter schools are publicly funded and privately run, with no teachers' unions, no school board influence and no centralized curriculum. These were the pluses. There was only one minus: There was no money. The charter idea was dead as soon as it began. I assembled an all -black team. My plan was to put black educators together, and we would show 'em. Brothers and sisters were gonna open a successful charter school. Black educators serving black kids. This was my first major mistake. Talent and commitment have no color. Kids don't care what color their teachers are, and I shouldn't have either. After almost a year of stops and starts with a team that was not effectively assembled, I realized that I failed in my judgment because I did not keep my eye on the goal, which was to build a school that sent kids to college regardless of their hue or economic status. I have never made that mistake again. I doubled back and went into the schools and found the teachers who stayed the latest and arrived the earliest. I looked for the most ambitious teachers who had a reputation of being the most talented, and we started a second team. I am a social worker. I knew that I could run an organization, but wasn't sure about developing curriculum. When I created Team 2, my first pick was the best teacher I could find. Rich Beganski is the perfect complement, or opposite, of who I am. He's meticulous and lives and breathes curriculum. He is an operations genius. He was a longtime assistant coach who never wanted to be coach. I've never been an assistant and don't want to be one. Our team was composed of a white guy, a Latina, a black woman and a black man bound by a single commitment: to send kids to college. In 2003-04, Connecticut was settling a desegregation case. A component of the agreement was to open eight magnet schools

Question: What does his school send all graduates to?

Question: Who is Steve Perry?

Question: What kind of education do children from low income families get?

Question: What started process of building a quality school

Answer: college.

Answer: Hartford, Connecticut, and author of "Man Up!: Nobody is Coming to Save Us,"

Answer: dulled urban

Answer: a question from a parent

Summary:
Steve Perry: A parent asked why only rich kids get good schools .
He says question started process of building a quality school .
Perry says his team fought bureaucracy, union to try something new .
He says his school is highly rated and sends all graduates to college .


Editor's note: Tara Wall is deputy editor for The Washington Times. Before joining the newspaper, she was a senior adviser for the Republican National Committee and was named a public affairs director in the Department of Health and Human Services by President Bush. Read her columns here.

Tara Wall says President Bush will be remembered for keeping America safe.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In his final radio address as president-elect on the Sunday ahead of his inauguration, Barack Obama said President Bush "extended the hand of cooperation" to him throughout this period of transition. It was a final act of civility, on Mr. Bush's part.

It is a trait that is not surprising to those who know Bush (or those paying some attention at least half of the time). At least one Democrat has given him credit for it. Unfortunately, that tone of civility has been lost on the Democratic leadership over the past eight years.

Civility aside, how others -- more importantly, history -- will judge the 43rd president of the United States, is the question that has followed Bush out the door. Lucky for him, it won't just be up to Democrats to determine.

"I believe President Bush will be vindicated," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in an interview a couple of weeks ago. She may be an ardent defender of Bush, but I believe she's right. She, like I, have a different vantage point than what has been routinely portrayed.

While sitting in the Oval Office with the 43rd president, for what was his last official week in office last Thursday, I got the sense that he feels he will be vindicated, too.

He won't say as much, directly, but indirectly points to what matters most in his eyes -- protecting the homeland. "History will eventually see ... that not only was it necessary to take the steps I took, but [they] led to a better world," the president told me.

On a personal level (and for the sake of full disclosure), I must say that I have had the pleasure of working for and knowing Bush from his first campaign for president and throughout his presidency.

I started as a volunteer in 1999, then worked as a spokeswoman during his second campaign and then as an appointee in his administration.

Not only have I counted it an honor and a privilege to serve the 43rd president, but I have always had a deep respect for him as a person of faith, his strident conviction in doing what was right for the country and his commitment to closing the disparities that exist between black and white Americans -- no matter the mistakes made and lessons learned. Above all, it is his dignity and civility that stand out to me most.

Yet, for many conservatives (not just liberals), Bush has failed on many fronts. From the miscalculation of the insurgency in Iraq, to failed intelligence gathering and the issues of maintaining fiscal conservatism and delivering real immigration reform -- I can't tell you how many Republicans and conservatives I've spoken to over this past year who have told me how "disappointed" they've been with Bush. A few among them voted for "change" as a result.

The legacy Bush leaves behind won't be everything he wanted (particularly as it relates to popularity), but on many fronts, it will be better than that of his predecessor. Bill Clinton may have been popular, but his moral failings brought shame on the office of the presidency and tainted the people's house.

That will forever be a stain on Clinton's legacy. Not to mention, there was no such "civility" or "cooperation" when Clinton turned the keys over to Bush. I prefer principle over popularity any day.

On the moral front, President Bush delivered. On the social front, he delivered. On the fiscal front he failed considerably. Yet, on the national security front and on many domestic policies, he succeeded.

Depending on your vantage point, success may mean something wholly different. The details will be debated for decades to

Question: Who praised President Bush for the cooperative nature of transition?

Question: who is praised

Question: Who delivered on national security and many domestic issues?

Answer: Barack Obama

Answer: President Bush

Answer: President Bush

Summary:
Tara Wall: Eric Holder's remark that we're a "nation of cowards" was wrong .
She says he ignores the millions of votes Obama got from white voters .
Instead of hope, she says, Holder offered anger and resentment .
Obama has urged Americans to focus on the racial progress that's occurred .


Editor's note: Tara Wall is deputy editor for The Washington Times. Before joining the newspaper, she was a senior adviser for the Republican National Committee and was named a public affairs director in the Department of Health and Human Services by President George W. Bush. Read her columns here.

Tara Wall says Eric Holder's "nation of cowards" comment struck the wrong tone.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- First, we're a nation of whiners; now, we're a nation of cowards.

The coward comment comes from none other than President Obama's newly minted attorney general, Eric Holder.

The remarks were part of a speech Holder delivered for Black History Month. Yet, even in that context, the words came across as arrogant, condescending and not at all becoming a statesman.

One dictionary definition of coward is "lacking courage." Stinging words for a country at war, where white and black soldiers are shedding the same color blood. Are they cowards?

Ironic too that Holder's remarks come at a time when the nation has just elected its first black president and witnessed the confirmation of its first black attorney general (Holder himself). Forget that more whites than blacks cast their ballots for a black man to lead the nation. So this is how Holder says thanks?

Did the attorney general not think about the weight his words would carry? Was he simply trying to be provocative? Is this his way of bringing the races together? Does his position or his color give him the bravado to think that he can get away with calling us cowards?

Imagine for a moment if John McCain or George W. Bush uttered those words. The criticism would have known no bounds. i-Report.com: Share your thoughts on Holder's comments

You'll recall, it was just a few months back that a media frenzy erupted when former Sen. Phil Gramm called national leaders (not the nation) a bunch of "whiners." Media pundits and broadcasters blasted Gramm for weeks, until he was forced off McCain's campaign.

Gramm's words, while true, were mild in comparison to Holder's. Where is that same outrage and moral condemnation over Holder's loose lips? It's a rhetorical question, of course.

And as much as we are constantly reminded of the past "mistakes" this country has made, is there nothing worth celebrating, no times when racial harmony brought racial reconciliation? Little of that made it to Holder's speech. Instead, he chose the celebratory occasion to exact punishment by way of guilt.

It makes one wonder, why does every race speech by those on the left have to begin (and end) with repudiation and insult? Why must there be a constant reminder of what went wrong without giving due recognition to what went right?

I will acknowledge that the country can always do better when it comes to race, but as much as Republicans are accused of refusing to admit racism exists, assuredly Democrats exploit it for every inch of territory they can garner. They point fingers, threaten and name-call without offering real solutions or substantive conversation.

One regular reader of The Washington Times, a Democrat, forwarded me a letter he sent to Holder, telling the attorney general how much he "applauds" his remarks but saying he had one request: "I would like to recommend that your office take the lead in ensuring the appointment of at least one African-American on every committee and task force that is created by the President of the United States and current cabinet Secretary's."

How's that for affirmative action on demand? More like affirmative extortion. The writer also stated in closing: "Let us (by "us," he means black folks) take advantage of every opportunity that is before us." I was particularly struck by the words "take advantage." It is a line of thinking and supposed reasoning to justify black Americans getting what's "due."

This was just one person's opinion, but it reflects a sentiment shared by many liberals. It also reveals a get-it-all-

Question: What did Tara Wall say?

Question: Who said we're a "nation of cowards"?

Question: What did Eric Holder say that we're a nation of?

Question: Who got millions of votes from white voters?

Answer: Eric Holder's "nation of cowards" comment struck the wrong tone.

Answer: Eric Holder.

Answer: of cowards.

Answer: President Obama's