Saturday, August 23, 2014

Shoot to kill? . . . . or shoot to wound, just enough to disable?

The police shooting of the unarmed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, as well as other similar stories of unarmed, young black men being fatally shot by police, has raised a question that was addressed by Sabrina Siddiqui on the Huffington Post (Aug 19. 2014):  
When faced with a perceived threat, why is it that many officers shoot to kill, rather than simply to wound?
I had been wondering the same thing.   As a young psychiatrist many years ago, I was asked to accompany the police to the apartment where a patient of mine had barricaded himself, was behaving irrationally, and was threatening to harm others as well as himself.   Initially, we were able to calm down this man, who it turned out had become addicted to amphetamines and had also been drinking heavily -- and his reactions were highly volatile and dangerous.  Police had succeeded in getting him to relinquish his gun.   

But then something suddenly triggered a violent response.   Just like in the movies, he grabbed an empty whiskey bottle by its neck, smashed the bottle against a table, and was coming at the police officer with a lethal weapon of jagged glass.   I was standing a few feet away.

Before I could quite apprehend what was happening, the officer whipped out his gun and very accurately shot the man in the leg at fairly close range;   he went down, the officer was able to subdue him, and then we had a man with a shattered tibia -- but still alive.   

He would wear a leg brace the rest of his life because of nerve damage.  A 12 step program helped him gain control of his addictions, and long-term psychotherapy helped work through some deep emotional problems that led to all of this -- and he was able to resume his work as a physician.

In that small apartment bedroom, a well-trained, quick-thinking, police officer spared my patient's life and kept us all safe long enough to address the underlying problems.

But that's not the way it is done today, apparently.   In case after case that we're hearing about, there seems to have been no attempt simply to disable by wounding;  instead the officers shoot to kill.   Here's what Siddiqui says about that:
Members of law enforcement are legally permitted to use deadly force when they have probable cause to believe that a suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm either to the officer or to others. In such cases, most officers are trained to shoot at a target's center mass, where there is a higher concentration of vital areas and major blood vessels . . . .
John Firman, director of professional services for the International Association of Chiefs of Police, explained that attempting to shoot an arm or leg is too impractical;  limbs move too fast, and it's easy to miss.  Firman made it crystal clear:
"In all policy everywhere on force in any law enforcement agency in America, the bottom line statement should read: If you feel sufficiently threatened or if lives are threatened and you feel the need that you must use lethal force, then you must take out the suspect."
Some say that a debate over shooting to wound vs shooting to kill is misleading, because often the situations are so volatile and escalate so rapidly, and they require split-second decisions.   I'm sure that's true;   but I am very grateful that, on a Saturday morning some 35 years ago in Decatur, GA, a police officer -- whose name I no longer know -- had been trained that it is better to shoot to wound . . .  rather than to kill

It gave all of us a second chance to make things right.


Friday, August 22, 2014

An incredible new development in the Michael Brown killing

Well, at least there's no longer any mystery to why the incident report of the police officer who shot and killed Michael Brown has not been released.

He did not write an incident report . . . because his attorney advised him not to, according to some accounts.    Laurence O'Donnell reported this on his 10 pm MSNBC program last night.    

Instead, the St. Louis County police department has released a form, which is used in an incident report.   It includes the victim's name and a few other facts like time of incident, etc.   Usually the officer then gives a narrative description of the incident.  But as O'Donnell pointed out, "there is not one written sentence" on this report form the purports to be the incident report from Officer Darrell Wilson.

Legal experts O'Donnell consulted say this gives Wilson a tremendous strategic advantage.   He can now take all the witness accounts that have been released, as well as interviews in the media, plus autopsy reports -- and then he can construct his own account for the grand jury to conform with what others have said or what objective evidence shows.

As one of O'Donnell's guests put it from his years of experience:   "If there is trouble releasing the report, it's usually because there is trouble with the report."   And that is certainly true in this case.

The other big issue, now that the nightly clashes have ended, is the demand from the community that the Attorney General step aside and turn the prosecution of the case over to an independent special investigator.   The general feeling among the African-American community of Ferguson is that AG Robert McCulloch has a record of not aggressively prosecuting prior cases of white cops shooting unarmed black men.

Beyond that, my main concern from what I've heard is that he does have a major factor that would likely bias him -- and rather than recognizing it as a problem of bias, he considers it a strength and reason that he would not be biased.

McCulloch's own father was a policeman who was killed in the line of duty.    In telling about this during a televised interview, he grew quite emotional, struggling to maintain his composure as he talked about having to watch his mother raise him and his siblings without her husband -- and live out the rest of her life without the man she had married.

McCulloch then says that this gives him a strong motive to stand up for victims of violence.  He therefore thinks it would not bias him to favor the white police officer over the black victim of his shooting.

Perhaps it does give him empathy for victims of violence.   But in his own personal experience, the victim -- his father -- was a white policeman.    Is he then biased in favor of shooting victims -- or in favor of police officers who are at risk in the line of duty?

The kind of bias that is most insidious is that which the person is unaware of and thinks he does not have.

Here are two huge, glaring reasons that the further investigation and prosecution of this case should be moved out of the police department and put in the hands of an independent, special prosecutor.


Thursday, August 21, 2014

A stumbled-upon slice of Georgia history: women, voting, racism, and the U. S. Senate

Here's a small historical note that I stumbled upon today while searching for something else on the internet.   It involves Georgia politics, the Progressive Era, women's right to vote, and a number of interesting details that might surprise those who think of Georgia only in its current red-state, conservative, and often luddite image.   So I thought this brief historical note would make an interesting change of pace from Ferguson's police tactics, Iraq and ISIS, Israel and Palestine, beheadings and airstrikes.

With the adoption of the 19th amendment to the U. S. Constitution on August 26, 1920, women won the right to vote and to hold public office in the United States.   On October 3, 1922 Rebecca Latimer Felton was appointed by Georgia's Gov. Thomas Hardwick to fill the U. S. Senate seat that had suddenly become vacant due to the untimely death of Sen. Tom Watson.    Rebecca Felton, at the age of 87, became the first woman United States senator.   She was from Georgia -- and she served only one day.

Imagine all that !!     The details make an interesting story in themselves.

Rebecca Latimer Felton (1835-1930) was a writer, a lecturer, a reformer, and the most prominent woman in Georgia in the Progressive EraHer husband represented a Georgia district in the U. S. House of Representatives, and she managed his campaigns.  She championed voting rights, equal pay, and education for women, as well as prison reforms.   

However, she was also a confirmed racist.  This crusader for women's suffrage was opposed to voting rights for blacks;   she opposed educating black males, saying it would lead them to rape white women.   She even once spoke in favor of lynching 1,000 black men a week, if necessary, to protect white women.

There's irony in the fact that Rebecca Felton was a leader in the women's suffrage movement, and she was appointed to the U.S. Senate seat by Gov. Thomas Hardwick, who had opposed the 19th amendment.    But political expediency trumps almost anything.

When Sen. Tom Watson died suddenly in 1921, Georgia Gov. Thomas Hardwick had the opportunity to appoint someone to fill the seat until a successor was chosen in a special election.   Watson himself planned to run for the position, and he didn't want to appoint someone who might be a competitor in the special election.    Besides, appointing a woman might help him win the votes of Georgia's newly enfranchised women.

On October 3, 1922, Hardwick appointed Felton to the U. S. Senate, expecting that she would never actually serve because the senate was in recess until after the special election to replace Watson.   His political calculation was that he would get credit with women for appointing a woman, he would eliminate a possible competitor, and she would never actually be sworn in anyway.

Ironies abound here.  Hardwick was not in fact elected.   Walter George won the special election.    He responded to a spirited campaign by the women of Georgia to allow Felton to be sworn in.   The gentlemanly George delayed his own swearing in by a day to allow Felton to actually be sworn in on November 21st.    She thus served for one day, from November 21-22, 1922; and then Walter George was sworn in on November 22 and served with great distinction as Georgia's senator for 37 years.

One further irony in this snapshot of Georgia political history:   Rebecca Latimar Felton was the first woman in the U. S. Senate.   She was also the last U. S. senator who had actually been a slave owner prior to the emancipation.

It's amazing what you can stumble upon while noodling around on Wikipedia.


A tipping point ?

I've been waiting for Democratic politicians running for re-election to the House or Senate to embrace the Affordable Care Act and all the benefits it is bringing to people.

The Republicans did such a good job of demonizing "Obamacare" and the president himself that those in tight races in conservative districts have shied away.

Until now.   Incumbent Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark) has taken the plunge . . . .   well, more like stuck a toe in.   But he is running an ad featuring health care insurance and his vote to reform it.   He doesn't mention the ACA or Obamacare.

But it is a first step.   And we still have about 75 days until the election.


Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Thank Gov. Deal for this: "GA ranks 50th for jobless"

That was the headline in yesterday's AJC:   "Ga. ranks 50th for jobless."  And, as any good political opponent would, at 9:18 am Jason Carter's campaign sent a fund-raising email highlighting this shameful statistic.

The governor likes to brag about bringing new industry to the state.   So why are we at the bottom in terms of jobs?   Don't these industries actually hire people to work?   Let's hope so, since he gave them such compelling tax breaks, which then required more cuts in spending for the people of this state.

Deal's lame excuse for the dismal jobless rate is that this actually represents a surge in job seekers, which is a measure of renewed faith in the economy.    Well, maybe a little bit.   But 50th place out of 51 -- D.C. is included?   Only Mississippi has a higher jobless rate?    There can't be any good in that.

Try to pay your bills with that one, guv.   Could it also be that (1) all those state government jobs (teachers, etc.) that you eliminated in your austerity measure?  And (2) the estimated number of jobs that expanding Medicaid would have brought . . . but didn't happen because you refused to take the gift from Obamacare?

Of course, it's not just his fault.    But it is partly his fault.   And I hope Jason Carter plays it for all the political capital that can be wrung from it.


Two governors -- Deal and Perry #2

This is the police mug shot of Governor Rick Perry of Texas.   He turned himself in today to be booked and arraigned -- but he was not arrested or taken into custody -- after being indicted by a grand jury last week on the charges of abuse of power in attempting to force the resignation of the head of the prosecutor's office that handles ethical charges against elected officials. 

View image on Twitter

Be afraid, Governor Nathan Deal of Georgia.  Be very afraid.   Because what Perry did is so very similar to your manipulation of Georgia's ethics commission and its chair(s) to get charges against you reduced to a wrist-slap for technical violation.   You got away with it . . . so far.

But it's not over yet.   First, you've got a political opponent who is going to use it against you.  And then there may still be a new investigation of all that.   The fat lady hasn't sung yet, sir.


PS:   Do you suppose this is the typical mug shot in Texas?    In color.   Smiling.   Camera-ready appearance.  Or is this special treatment for the governor?

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

The other side of the Ferguson community

Enough for now of the negative, the bad news coming out of Ferguson, Missouri.

There is also good news in the random acts of kindness:   residents of this community who try to stop those intent on inciting violence, who offer food and shelter to out-of-town news media persons, church volunteers who help organize assistance, volunteers who guard stores against looting.

Because there has been so much written about the disparity between the largely black citizenry and the white power structure and authority in Ferguson, I had fallen into thinking of it in terms of urban poverty and slums.   Not so.  I regret the stereotypical assumptions.  Ferguson, by many measures, is middle class.

Here are some facts that I didn't know until published in the Atlanta Journal Constitution today:

Median household income:   $37,517
Home ownership:  59.9%
College graduates:  22.8%
High school graduates:   88.5%  (slightly higher than state average)

And yet, even so, race seems to be a factor, despite the denial of Ferguson's (white ) mayor, who said that there is no racial divide in Ferguson.    How else to explain the wide divide between government power and the majority-black citizens.

The good news seems to be that the people of Ferguson may be in a better position to make good use of the spotlight that this tragedy will expose of the great power differential between blacks and whites.


PS:   Perhaps even more relevant, however is one stat that the AJC did not include.   For St. Louis County, which includes Ferguson, the unemployment rate for African-American men between ages 16 and 24 is 47%, compared to 16% for white men in that age range.   This disparity is one of the highest in the country.

Society's neglected responsibility for Ferguson

This does not negate everything I have written about the Ferguson police force doing everything wrong.    But Christ Matthews last night on MBNBC gave some thought-provoking comments at the end of his show.   Here's what I got from it:

We (liberals, anyway) tend to put the blame for the community revolt primarily on the local police:    an unjustified shooting of an unarmed black teen;  as far as we've been told the officer who shot him as been allowed to leave town without any charges against him;  the lack of explanations;  the attempts by selective release of information to make the victim look like the bad guy; and the militaristic approach to controlling mostly peaceful crowds.

Matthews, while acknowledging these wrongs, also stood up for the police to some extent.   They have a very difficult job -- trying to keep a lid on unrest in a community that exemplifies the effects of inequality in the United States.    Unemployment, lack of opportunity, inequality -- and not much hope for anything better than a life of menial jobs and second-class citizenship, increased likelihood of being in prison and of dying young.   This is the breeding ground for unrest and mistrust of authority.

Now we put police officers in charge of keeping violence in check in such a breeding ground for it.    Matthews does not minimize the problems.   He says that it doesn't start with the police.   We as a society that perpetuates these conditions give the police a nearly impossible task, often don't give them the training or resources to deal with it adequately.

So while the police bear their share of blame -- society has the larger responsibility to change the economic and social conditions for our minority, underprivileged citizens.


Monday, August 18, 2014

Ferguson police did everything wrong #4

Rapidly breaking news in this case that implicates the Ferguson police as even more in the wrong than we knew.

CNN is now showing a video tape made by a neighbor who witnessed the whole shooting and aftermath.   Piaget Crenshaw says she had to go back into the house and get her phone camera, so she did not start filming until after Michael was lying dead in the street.   Putting together her account, the video, and the account of Dorian Johnson, the friend who was with Michael,  here's how I understand what happened.  What is missing, of course, is any account from the police officer himself -- which I contend is one of the things they've done wrong.

1.  Michael and Dorian were walking down the middle of the street.  This is a quiet two lane side street in a residential neighborhood.    Not a place where a couple guys walking in the street would actually cause much of a traffic problem.  Johnson says they were walking along when the police officer (who we now know was Darren Wilson) ordered them to get onto the sidewalk.  He says it quickly escalated (I gather Michael was defiant) and the officer began trying to pull Michael into the police car.   For what isn't clear.  Was he arresting him?

2.  Crenshaw, who made the video, says she was not close enough to see exactly what went on at first, except that she saw the police officer trying to pull Michael into the car;  but Michael broke free and start walking away from the police car, up the street when the officer began firing shots.   Johnson says they both started running to get away, that he hid behind a car, but Michael kept going up the street.

3.  The officer fired a few shots that missed Michael, maybe one shot grazed his arm.  He then turned around facing the officer with his hands up to show he was not armed.   Both witnesses say that he had his hands up, but the officer continued shooting.

4.  According to the autopsy, all shots entered the body from the front.   One injury on his arm is consistent with having entered either from the back or else from the front with his hands in the air.    I believe Crenshaw said that she thought a shot grazed Michael's arm, which is the point at which he turned around and held up his hands.

5.  Because she did not have her camera phone ready to record, the video begins only after Michael's body is lying in the middle of the street, estimated by her to be about 30 seconds.   Officer Darren Wilson is shown pacing beside the body;  another police officer is standing nearby.    Crenshaw said Wilson seemed in a daze, she thought, like he was having trouble taking in what he had just done.

6.  The county medical examiner, who did the first autopsy, confirmed that all shots entered the body from the front.   He also said that there was evidence of marijuana in his body.   This might have caused him to act goofy or even defiant;  but it would more likely calm him down than cause him to be violent and dangerous.

Crenshaw also says that the police confiscated her phone.  If I understood this correctly, this means the police have had this video and chose not to release it until now.

We now know that Officer Wilson left town and is at an unknown location.  All of this suggests, at worst, an attempt at cover-up on the part of the Ferguson police;  or, at best, more concern for the safety of the officer than dealing with a possible criminal action of that officer.   Unless we learn that this "unknown location" means that he is in custody somewhere.

This has all been mishandled from start to finish.   Beginning with the poor racial relations between community and police, then the combination of a provocative teenager probably mouthing off and being defiant toward an officer;   an officer with a short fuse thinking he had to take a tough approach;   and then the whole aftermath of peaceful protesters being treated like adversaries.

But the defiant teen wound up dead -- and it didn't have to be that way.   The preliminary autopsy report says he would have survived five of the six bullets.  It was only the one into the top of his head that killed him.  And three witnesses have now said that he was facing the officer with his hands up at that point.


Freguson police did everything wrong #3 . . . and they are still at it.

When I chose my running title for blogs about the situation in Ferguson, Missouri, I intuitively chose to focus on what the police had done wrong.    It now seems to be the main theme of this whole thing.    If anything can be done the wrong way, that's what they seem bent on doing.

The one exception in all this is the governor's wise choice to remove the local police chief of responsibility and put the highway patrol officer, Capt. Ron Johnson, in charge.   But it doesn't seem that he has much control of the local police chief, who has continued to give press releases in his same ham-handed, tone-deaf manner.

It's also not clear to me whether all the officers now managing the nightly curfew are local police or highway patrolmen, and whether Johnson has control of all of them.   This morning we read that the governor is calling in the national guard.

The glaring omission so far is that the police still have not released the report from the officer who did the shooting.   What exactly transpired . . . from his point of view.   Is it so damaging, and so confirming of what people are assuming, that they dare not release it?   Or is this just part of their clueless response?

An independent, private second autopsy has been performed at the family's request.   A preliminary report from this autopsy shows that Michael Brown was shot six times, four in the right arm and two in the head.    What appears to be the final shot was into the top of his head, indicating that his head was bent down.

Witnesses have said that he was standing with his hands in the air while shots were fired at him.

This all leaves very pertinent questions that only a reconciliation -- or attempt at it -- between the offier's report and the witnesses reports can answer.   Until we have that, this cannot be resolved.   They can use massive police forces and stop the violence -- but they cannot heal the pain or assuage the anger that way.   Only full disclosure, accountability, and a changed relationship between this community and the police can solve this problem.


[Added late morning].  More from the private pathologist's report.   Evidence suggests that Michael was trying to surrender when the shot that killed him was fired.  It enters the top of his head, and he was 6'4" tall;   so his head undoubtedly was bent down, or else he was bending over.    Not likely a position of threat to the officer requiring a shot into the head of an unarmed man.   At least two witnesses have said Michael had his hands in the air.

Two governors -- Deal and Perry -- similar ethics of "abuse of power"?

Gov. Rick Perry has been indicted by a grand jury in Texas over allegations that he abused the power of his office by threatening to veto the budgetary funding for the office that investigates wrong-doing by state office-holders, as long as the current chair remained in office.    She refused to resign, and he did veto funding.

Gov. Nathan Deal was facing an ethics charge on the handling of his campaign finances during his run for governor in 2010.   As the ethics investigation heated up in 2011, and subpoenas were about to be served, the executive director of the ethics commission was told that budget cuts required her salary to be cut by $35,000 (not surprisingly, she resigned) and that the job of her deputy (and a key investigator in the charges) would be eliminated.

Aren't these two situations quite similar?    

The main surface difference seems to be that Gov. Deal denies having anything to do with the job changes at the ethics commission -- although it has been established that his office had already picked her replacement, and in the end they got the settlement they wanted.  In addition, the replacement has since then revealed that she felt pressured by two members of the governor's senior staff to settle his ethics charges without a public hearing.  And that is what happened:  no public hearing, a negotiated settlement resulting in a wrist-slap fine for technical errors in financial disclosure reports.

It really strains credulity to contend that Gov. Deal was not involved in this tampering with an investigation and abuse of power.   Of course, his finger-prints are not on it, but that's how he operates -- just like Gov. Chris Christie is technically not the one who ordered the bridge closing and all the other abuses of power in New Jersey.

So, if the Perry case merits a grand jury indictment in Texas, why do we not have an independent investigator looking into Deal's deal here in Georgia?    Because Deal's got the Attorney General in his pocket, and he won't order an independent investigation.

Is our governor even slicker than theirs?    Well, truth be told, I would never expect Nathan Deal to have an "Oops" moment in debate;   he's too buttoned down for that.  He never speaks in anything resembling abandon.  He would just drone and drone and drone and put everyone to sleep.

Fortunately, I don't believe we've heard the end of this yet.    For one thing, Jason Carter is going to keep it alive in their competitive race for the governor's seat in the November election.


Sunday, August 17, 2014

Ferguson police did everything wrong #2

Considering all, the amount of violence and vandalism in Ferguson, Missouri last night was not so bad, compared to other racially-inspired rioting in other equally volatile situations.   Think Watts.   Think Rodney King.  Think Kent State.

A large share of the blame for what happened last night can be placed on the Ferguson police chief for his egregiously inflammatory release of information about Michael Brown's allegedly stealing cigars from a convenience store, which was unrelated to the shooting  -- and not also releasing an account of the police officer's shooting of Michael.

Police Chief Thomas Jackson did so against the request of the Department of Justice and without the knowledge of either the governor (who had earlier replaced him) or of Capt. Ron Johnson, who is now in charge.   Whether he did so out of malice and revenge, or whether he is simply that insensitive to the situation -- it goes a long way toward explaining why race relations between the black community and the local police are so bad.

On ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" today, Gov. Jay Nixon expressed his disapproval and said that neither he nor his staff had known the video was going to be released.
"We certainly were not happy with that being released, especially in the way that it was.  It appeared to cast dispersions on a young man that was gunned down in the street. It made emotions raw."
He, too, said that the renewed unrest in the community was due in part to this release.  
"To attempt to in essence disparage the character of this victim in the middle of a process is not right. It’s just not right. . . .   And secondarily, it did put the community, and quite frankly the region and the nation, on alert again. These are old wounds. These are deep wounds in these communities. And that action was not helpful."
In a local radio interview, Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) expressed his lack of trust in the local law enforcement: 
"I have absolutely no confidence in the Ferguson police, the county prosecutor. . . . We know we won't get a fair shake there. . . . That's why they did what they did today, was to negatively influence a jury pool in St. Louis County. . . .  Just to assassinate Michael Brown's character is wrong. He was already assassinated, so now you're going to assassinate his character?  What kind of human being are you?"
He continued: 
"It's personal too. I'm raising a 13-year-old son in this community and he nor anyone else should have to live under a double standard with the law. We have to change the policing in this community."
In sharp contrast, the state highway patrol officer, Capt. Ron Johnson, who was put in charge by Gov. Nixon, spoke to Mike Brown's family and community at a church rally for him:
"My heart goes out to you, and I say that I'm sorry. . . .  I am with you. I will protect you, I will protect your right to protest."

Sometimes, there is simple ignorance and ineptitude.   And fear.   Sometimes there is malice.  I can't say what the balance of the mix is in this police chief, but it feels to me like malice must be in there at some level.


A Tale of Two Women . . . Hillary and Elizabeth . . . and a political dilemma

I admire both of these women, Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren.   They exemplify two different political approaches . . . and the dilemma of choosing.

Hillary Clinton is the consummate centrist, awesomely experienced, and ready to be commander-in-chief.   I believe she is driven by concern for real people's lives and the desire to make the world a better place.   But I also believe that her primary focus in running for office is the necessity of winning the power of office in order to do good works.   Not alienating key constituencies, including money sources, becomes a major consideration and leads her to be overly cautious.   Power perhaps has a slight edge over principle.

Elizabeth Warren is the consummate issue-driven, gifted articulator, and the principled inspiration for a populist movement.   I believe she also is driven by concern for real people's lives and the desire to make the world a better place.   Her primary focus has been and continues to be a sharp focus on issues and principles.   She's not afraid to offend the big banks or any other system that takes advantage of the people.   In fact, she made her name in Washington by challenging the banking system -- and. because of that she lost the opportunity to be the first director of the federal agency she created to protect consumers from the big banks and credit card companies.    Instead, she was elected to represent Massachusetts in the U. S. Senate, where she is proving an effective legislator.   Power comes from adherence to passionate principle.

So in choosing a presidential candidate, do we go for the pragmatist who will compromise in order to get what she can from a very partisan congress?   Or do we choose the idealist willing to do what's right even if it means defeat?

The pragmatist-insider could play it safe and settle for what can be wrung from the system that we have to operate in.  The idealist-fighter will inspire many people who have lost faith in politicians and could even spark a powerful movement that could bring about real. long-term change.  

Baracki Obama wanted to be the latter;  he tried to be.   But he had to settle for being the former -- and he has accomplished a great deal, in spite of unprecedented opposition in Congress. 

Who will be able to accomplish more in the long run?   That is the dilemma.   I want an idealist and an inspiring leader who can change the system.   But can that person win?   And, if she should win, can she govern in the system that is Washington?  Ideally, we could have someone who embodies and excels at both . . . but then Bill Clinton can't run again.