Can Obama Lead in the Real World on Fox News Strategy Room

One of my favorite media activities is to spend time on FoxNews.com Strategy Room. Eric Bolling hosted my time on and, as usual, we literally covered the entire map of headlines, with a heavy focus on international affairs.

One of the brilliant ideas behind Strategy Room is that its panelists are made up of well informed policy generalists -- a dying breed in media, but one of the most important if the objective is to provide a contextual understanding of what is going on in current events. It provides a well informed discussion that the general viewer can appreciate.

This week's big focus was how Barack Obama was handling international affairs. Of particular interest was Obama's encounter with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Most Americans were shocked by the warm "Kodak moment" between the leader of the free world and a vicious dictator. The panel's assessment was largely negative, but ranged from the more benign "sophomoric," to one of being revealing of Obama's view of the dictator. Some simply stated he "didn't know what he was doing" and he approaches things as an "academic." I believe that he approaches the job with one of the most frightening examples of "on the job training" I have seen and, at least appeared as a man who felt some affection for Chavez. To make matters worse, 24 hours later Obama allowed himself to pose with Chavez giving him a book that decries the US role in Latin America (“The Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent,” by Eduardo Galeano). The old adage "first time, shame on you; second time, shame on me" certainly would have worked for him this week.

Strategy Room also discussed the problem of Iran's development of a nuclear missile program and the fact that the days before Israel takes unilateral action are numbered. Simply put, Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made it clear, he believes Israel is a nation that should not exist. Israel cannot afford to do nothing while Iran becomes more dangerous. In our discussion we reviewed the fact that we do have history of Israel taking a similar action (in 1981 against Iraq for the same reason s as they would attack Iran) and that although the world largely complained, the US grumbled lightly and gave a collective sigh of relief. In 1981, Israel only had to fly through Iraq's air space. To attack Iran, it is believed they will have to fly through Iraq's air space again, which is now under US control. How will Obama respond to unilateral action? Candidate Obama made it clear that the protection of Israel is a US priority, but he has done nothing to remove the pressure on Israel to take action (which would be in the best interest of the entire Middle East). George Bush didn't help in this area either and every request Israel made on both Presidents have fallen on deaf ears. Conclusion? Obama is too much of an unknown, he is clearly inexperienced, and none of the panelists wanted to make a leap and determine what this Administration will do in regards to Iran.

Strategy Room is one of the most diverse and entertaining news programs on any platform: TV radio, or online. It is because of its slate of great hosts and eclectic group of panelists that thousands regularly gather around their computer screens, rather than their televisions.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on CNN 650 (M-F at 11 am), AOL Radio, and CBS Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

Time Magazine's Best Lists: Magazine Covers

The lists of "top ten" articles by Time Magazine for 2007 is impressive, to say the least. Most will not find much attention here, but there are several I found worthy of review. One category that is worthy of note was their choice of the best magazine covers.

Their number one choice was Texas Monthly's "Bum Steer" issue in which they make fun of Vice President Dick Cheney's hunting accident. All I can do is yawn. This is a story that received way too much play and I think Time should be embarrassed that it gave it such high praise. It really wasn't that funny.

However, they recover from their first choice with a cover from the New Yorker of Iranian President Ahmadinejad getting his foot tapped while reading a newspaper while sitting on the toilet (think Senator Larry Craig). This came after a comment he made at Columbia University in which he told the audience that Iraq doesn't have "a problem" with homosexuality (thanks to a death penalty for such activities). Hilarious.

I liked their choice of Steve Jobs of Apple with the title "iGod" from New York magazine. It was clever and funny, two important elements to successful covers.

Another excellent cover was of Stephen Colbert holding a "mini me" of himself on GQ. Colbert is hilarious and the vanity and audacity of the picture only adds to his amazing humor.

The Economist is one of my favorite magazines and its cover on the "End of Cheap Food" demonstrates why it is one of the smartest publications out there. A great choice of Time Magazine.

There are several others that I would have put in my ten and several of theirs that I would have eliminated, but I think the choices of magazine covers is better than other areas they ventured into.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Receive that free ezine by clicking here.

Time Magazine's Person of the Year

It's that time of the year again. The period of the year in which Time Magazine chooses its person of the year. It isn't always the person who has done the most good, but the one that has had the biggest impact, right or wrong. Sometimes it isn't even a person, with a computer winning one year and everyone winning last year.

This year's list is a little more conventional (in the order of the most popular):

J.K. Rowling

Al Gore

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Condolezza Rice

Steve Jobs

General David Petraeus

Vladimir Putin

Hu Jintao

In typical, smug, Time fashion, the list is made up of people whom the media elite believes are worthy of the "Person of the Year" title. Rowling, the author of one of the biggest selling books of all time. Al Gore the crowned king of nature. Ahmadinejad, the man most likely to get attention and terrorize his neighbors. Vladimir Putin, the dictator that won't go away.

There are a few that I think clearly make sense. Steve Jobs, certainly an entrepreneurial powerhouse. General David Petraeus, the man who has single handedly changed the debate on the war of Iraq. Hu Jintao, a man has transformed the Chinese economy and society. I have to eliminate Jobs because, although he continues to reinvent himself and his business in profound ways. I simply don't see his contribution as "Person of the Year" in scope. I think Jintao and Petraeus clearly qualify. They have both changed the world. But Time Magazine is an US Magazine and I'm an American, so guess who I voted for in Time's survey?

Petraeus has not only change the war in Iraq, but will possibly change the Presidential race of 2008 and US policy for years to come. Petraeus has become so successful that he is now forcing Democrats (who have staked their future on defeat) to come across as though they are running against the troops. Petraeus could change the political landscape for years to come.

Lee Bollinger's Big Surprise

I wrote this post as I watched events unfold on TV. Columbia President Lee Bollinger is giving Iranian President Ahmadinejad the public tongue lashing he has long deserved.

Beginning with a warm introduction, Bollinger followed with an inventory of questions that highlight the threat Iran is to the world, including the US. Furthermore, he listed the numerous Human Rights violations the Iranian regime is famous for. Bollinger ended his series of questions by stating that he didn't expect Ahmadinejad to have the "intellectual courage" to answer the queries.

I was shocked. So was the Iranian President who basically countered that Bollinger had "bad manners" according to Iranian standards. The wonderful thing about it, Ahmadinejad spent much of the address countering Bollinger's well put attacks.

So why did Bollinger get tough? I can only speculate, but a few thoughts came to mind:

* He probably got a little tired picking up newspapers and seeing that providing this forum was the equivalent of giving Hitler a forum, giving the President's view of Israel and the West. I'm not sure if that is how Bollinger wants to be remembered.

* I'm sure he has personal disdain over the views of Ahmadinejad. How could he not?

* Maybe it was a planned "set up." An opportunity to take the Iranian president to task with an unusually large audience to watch both in an auditorium and TV.

* He was probably influenced by personal relationships. I'm sure family, friends, and business associates raised questions about the wisdom of such a decision.

* This is my opinion, but the most important reason is that "money talks." How many alumni of Jewish descent threatened to pull the plug on the institution? How many veterans who saw their band of brothers killed at the hands of Iranian terrorists protested? How many supporters of the university who experienced little pain directly from the Iranian monster, but had abundant enough common sense to not tolerate such a choice by the university?

I doubt seriously that Bollinger received "common sense," but instead was influenced by "dollars and cents." I guess we should be glad that, at least on one small level, Bollinger did the right thing. It would have been so much better if he had done the right thing for all the right reasons, which would include not giving this dictator any audience at all.

On the International News Front...

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Blinks

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran (see photo) has announced today that he was releasing the 15 British sailors his country has held for over two weeks. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has announced that he is elated by the news, but I am sure he is being cautiously optimistic in his response, since Ahmadinejad announced he was releasing the one female prisoner a week ago, but failed to do so. Both US and British officials have indicated that they will believe it when they fly out of Iranian air space. The President of Iran is calling it a "gift" to the British, but I have a difficult time interpreting it as anything but a blink. I have always seen Ahmadinejad as a crazy, not knowing the limits of his power. His response to this situation is actually a little encouraging. He blinked, something I didn't think he was capable or willing to do.

Nancy Pelosi as a Shadow Secretary of State

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is something of a shadow Secretary of State for the Democratic party, travelling to the tyrannical state of Syria and meeting with the President of that terrorist state, Bashar al-Assad. While President Bush and other western leaders have been trying to isolate this dictator, Pelosi has her own agenda and foreign policy with no regard to what the Executive Branch is pursuing. Diplomacy has always fallen under the Executive Branch, historically. This has become fashionable as of late, with Members of Congress doing their own diplomacy. The trend is dangerous, in my opinion, and creates a situation in which the US is sending confusing messages to the rest of the world.