(Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

By Andre Showell

It’s perhaps one of the most overused words ever to enter the American English vernacular: swagger. And more times than not, the word is used inappropriately. But if you had the chance to see President Obama’s first post-election White House news conference, you were seeing the word “swagger” exemplified.

It had very little to do with the way he walked or talked or his style of dress.  The president’s swag during his first second-term presser was a testament to what appears to be a new attitude. He seemed to shrug off his excessively polite, methodical, careful demeanor for a more opinionated, forceful and at times abrupt manner.

No example showed off the president’s swag more than his approach to one question about whether he would deter from nominating U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to the Secretary of State post amid Republican threats to block her nomination because of her handling of the recent attacks in Benghazi.

The president was sure-footed and resolute in his defense of Rice saying, “Let me say specifically about Susan Rice, she has done exemplary work.  She has represented the United States and our interests in the United Nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace.”

Critics had questioned whether a White House with such a reputation for putting only the most drama-free candidates before Congress would stand by Rice now that she finds herself in the hot seat.

But the most swagger-filled moment came shortly after President Obama’s defense of Rice when he gave the following retort: “As I’ve said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. And I’m happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. Ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous.”

I, for one, was pretty amazed that the president would stare Congress in the face, gangster-style and dare them to come after him. In so many words, he said he’d take a bullet if he had to so that a trusted appointee would not have to take the fall.

Is this a new President Obama? Without fear of making a re-election snafu, has he found his new stride? And is he emboldened to be more declarative and get a little gangsta now that he has received a new mandate to govern? If his performance in his first press conference is any indication of how he will proceed during the second term, we could be seeing a new side of President Obama, one defined by a new, yet fitting incarnation of the word “swagger.”

BET Politics – Your source for the latest news, photos and videos illuminating key issues and personalities in African-American political life, plus commentary from some of our liveliest voices.  Click here to subscribe to our newsletter.

(Photos from left: Kristoffer Tripplaar-Pool/Getty Images, Edward Linsmier/Getty Images)

By Andre Showell

Recent moves by both President Obama and Republican hopeful Mitt Romney are making the distinctions between the two candidates crystal clear. In what seems to be an effort to appeal to their base constituents, the campaigns are intensifying efforts to clarify exactly where their candidates stand. Are they liberal or conservative?

Mitt Romney’s announcement that Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan is his pick for vice president was aimed at showing Romney in a different, perhaps brighter, GOP light. The former Massachusetts governor was widely believed to be a moderate in a climate that has forced many elected officials to hop the fence and pick a side. The selection of Paul Ryan, a fiscal conservative bar none, may help to put questions about Romney’s conservative chops to bed.

Obama, amid criticism about his own liberal street cred as it relates to same-sex marriage, gave a televised interview clarifying his position of support. He had expressed his opposition to the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy and strengthened hate crimes legislation within the Department of Justice in the past, but he felt the need to dispel any doubts about exactly where his own opinions lie in regard to same sex marriage.

As we march toward Nov. 6, I wonder if this is only the start of attempts to draw distinctions between the candidates in a race that seems to be providing voters with clearer choices.

(Photo: Carsten Koall/Getty Images)

By Andre Showell

There’s been a lot of talk about political gaffes this election season and Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is bearing the brunt of the criticism. During his international tour, he has taken a number of hits as he dips into the sometimes turbulent waters of diplomacy as a viable contender in the upcoming race to be beat President Barack Obama. But are his remarks truly gaffes, or just truths that are best left unspoken?

First, there was Romney’s statement about the Olympics which sent shockwaves throughout Europe. Romney reportedly said in passing that he believed that London may not have been ready to host the Olympics from a security standpoint. The British press took immediate offense, deeming Romney to be: “Mitt the Twit.”

Romney also came under attack after infuriating critics when he attributed the economic disparity between Israel and Palestine to differences in “culture.” They wrote off the comments as insensitive and offensive.

There are plenty of questions surrounding whether his remarks were actually gaffes, or simply misguided statements. The British media had been debating Great Britain’s Olympic readiness for weeks before Romney’s statements.  And cultural differences between the Israelis and Palestinians are both widely known and agreed upon even by the Israelis and the Palestinians.

And while Romney may have provided his opponents with plenty of ammunition to question his diplomatic readiness, I can’t say that there are lots of people who are questioning the truthfulness of his statements.

(Photos from left: AP Photo/Evan Vucci, REUTERS /KEVIN LAMARQUE /LANDOV)

By Andre Showell

Very often, in covering politics, we can almost predict the behavior of the candidates. But every now and then, even the most experienced journos encounter something that causes us a healthy degree of surprise.  I was prepared for partisan rancor after we were alerted that President Obama and former  Gov. Mitt Romney would be making dueling statements today following the massacre in Colorado that left at least 12 dead and dozens more injured in a nonsensical killing spree in an Aurora movie theater.

Friday night, James Holmes, opened fire in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater at Friday’s midnight showing of the final film in the Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises, killing at least 12 people and wounding 58. Holmes also booby-trapped his home.

I was already braced for each candidate to take full advantage of the heightened attention and guaranteed free TV time to posture and to position themselves in a race to appear more “presidential.” But that was just not the case and it appears that decorum and tact prevailed, at least for today.

First, the president made a last-minute change in his hectic schedule to address the tragedy that has stopped communities across the globe dead in its tracks. He spoke in Fort Myers, Florida, calling for the country to band together and recognize the fragility of life.  He said “Our time here is limited and it is precious.  And what matters at the end of the day is not the small things, it’s not the trivial things, which so often consume us and our daily lives.”

There was no mention of the need to enforce gun laws or to use the moment as a time to reinforce even tougher restrictions.  And there was not even a peep about Romney or Republican-backed measures that would ease gun access in the country.

Romney appealed to his audience, not as a White House candidate, but as a father. He said to his audience in New Hampshire, “Each one of us will hold our kids a little closer.” He said, “I stand before you today not as a man running for office, but as a father and grandfather, a husband, an American.”

And while the bitter battle for the White House is still lurking in the wings, at least for this Friday, the rivals are in agreement in their move to bring the nation together under one umbrella as Americans.

The president said something that I believe sums up the sentiment for the day.  He said, “I am so moved by your support.  But there are going to be other days for politics.  This, I think, is a day for prayer and reflection.”

(Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

By many accounts, the polling data pitches the upcoming presidential lesson as too close to call to declare a definitive front-runner. The country is so narrowly divided that there is no discernible way to know who the likely victor will be. In the African American community, President Barack Obama continues to enjoy a sizeable if not, mammoth lead over his republican rival, Gov. Mitt Romney.

No doubt many of those in our largely African-American audience will be consumed with coverage about what it will take for President Obama to win the White House. But I wonder, if the polls are reflective of a truly tight race, what lessons can be learned if the election goes to Obama’s opponent. What is the lesson? What can be learned?

If Obama loses, I guess the first lesson is that it is lonely at the top and the tide can quickly turn. Just four years ago, the president was considered to be the media darling, the “rock star of the Senate.” Fast forward to 2012 and the president now faces an electorate that is noticeably more critical and vocally skeptical.

Another lesson is that “changing Washington” may be easier to say than it is to do. The Obama campaign’s “change” mantra piqued the idealistic leanings of the youth vote and the hopeful aspirations of Obama’s under-served supporters. But one thing the Obama administration soon found out when it came to White House is that the Washington machine is just that, a machine. This machine serves a purpose and while it can be upgraded or serviced, dismantling it, without an alternative, is simply not an option. If the engine doesn’t work, the car won’t move.

A third lesson to be learned in the event of an Obama loss, is tied to communicating with the American people. It’s not enough to believe that the people will intrinsically know a president’s intent. You have to tell them. Policy talk makes people tune out. But a political narrative that relates to voters’ lives, makes their ears perk up. Even the president admitted to learning this lesson recently during a CBS News interview. He said, “The mistake of my first term — couple of years — was thinking that this job was just about getting the policy right. And that’s important. But the nature of this office is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times.”

So until there is a clear and decisive front-runner, it is not a bad idea to think about what’s next; to consider each moment, whether victory or defeat, as a moment to take note, grow and hopefully make life better in the process.

(Photo: EPA/MICHAEL REYNOLDS /LANDOV)

By Andre Showell

Despite the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling that let stand the core provisions of the Affordable Care Act, the contentious fighting and partisan rancor is showing no signs of stopping now. Almost immediately following the ruling, conservatives dispatched a cadre of surrogates consisting of governors from red states, all singing from the same political songbook. They appear resolute in their conviction that the Affordable Care Act is bad policy and they will do all they can to nullify its effectiveness.

Oklahoma’s Attorney General Scott Pruitt also took part in the red state upheaval that followed the ruling. He issued a statement on behalf of the Republican Attorneys General Association that delivered an ominous warning: “We’re disappointed the Court upheld the individual mandate, and find it disturbing that they did not place a limit on the power of the federal government to control the lives of Americans. But, the battle isn’t over.”

In a brazen act of defiance to the decision of the highest court in the land, anti-Obamacare die-hard Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) suggests that the health-care law is destructive, unsustainable and unconstitutional. His office sent out a press statement urging governors not to put the health-care law into effect. The press release reads: “I urge every governor to stop implementing health-care exchanges that would help implement the harmful effects of this misguided law. Americans have loudly rejected this federal takeover of health care, and governors should join with the people and reject its implementation.”

The issue brings attention to what could amount to a loophole that Obamacare opponents can use to their advantage. There is apparently no punishment process in place that would compel states to actually move forward with implementation if they choose not do so. But on the other hand, if states chose to simply do nothing, the federal government still has the authority to step in and take over.

The idea of enacting the Affordable Care Act sounds like a simple idea on the surface. But the multitude of requirements and provisions may give states that disagree with the law legal cover that could mean more challenges and courtroom battles in the future.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker told Fox News, “We’ll look to the fall and if there’s a new president, and a new Senate that’s part of a Congress that’s willing to change that, the next step is just political.”

(Photo: Olivier Douliery-Pool/Getty Images)

By Andre Showell

I was reading the Washington Post when I stumbled on an article that caught my attention: “Still waiting for our first Black president.” The writer, Fredrick Harris, highlighted an issue that has been picking up steam ever since American voters made history, electing Barack Obama as the first Black president of the U.S.

It emphasizes the “one America” strategy the Obama White House has adopted in an effort to brand him as the “President of All People,” not just the first Black president. He pointed out the time I asked President Obama during a prime-time press conference in 2009 whether he had any plans of pushing targeted efforts to specifically address the Black unemployment rate, which, at that time, was double the national rate. The writer took issue with the president’s “rising tide lifts all boats” approach, asking, “But what of those who have no boats to begin with?”

When the president answered that question, I remembered thinking the metaphor was a bit ill-conceived since my premise had already indicated that Black people were already underwater from an employment standpoint. Simply making the tide rise would do nothing to stop the drowning. I remembered thinking he’d probably not win any additional Black support with such a tentative response.

In covering the president, I now know his answer was classically Obama: measured and methodical, some would say, to a fault. His approach is cautious and insightful considering the legions of detractors who are waiting to point him out as a “Black” president who serves “Black” voters.

While he hasn’t given those naysayers the obvious ammunition they’ve been waiting for, it could and should be argued that many of the president’s policies have a direct impact on African-Americans. But the dilemma before him is a delicate one. Would targeting policies directly at African-Americans mean he’d have to lose his title as the “President of All People?”

(Photo: REUTERS/Joshua Lott)

I remember learning in grade school that at one time people believed that the Earth was flat. But the progression of scientific discovery, trumpeted by the great Greek scientist Pythagoras, postulated that the Earth was round. Still, some held tightly to their own faulty information, clinging to their old, inaccurate beliefs and condemning those who dared to embrace the truth.  I wondered how this could be.

The whole birther debate over President Obama’s birthplace caused me to revisit the feelings of confusion I had as a child about those odd people who refused to accept the facts even when they’ve been proven.

It has been widely established that the president was born in Hawaii. He has produced both his short and long-form birth certificates. But that has done little to stop the birther buzz.

First, news broke last week, pointing to an instance that may have started the whole debate.  It was discovered that, back in 1991, promotional brochures from the president’s literary agency referred to him as being “born in Kenya.” Led by conservative site Breibart, the media pounced on the news, prompting the literary agency to blow off the story as a fact-checking error.

So you’d think that the whole thing would be settled, right? Wrong.

Enter Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett. He’s now threatening a move that could keep the president’s name off of the ballot in the state altogether. Before the ballot can be authorized, he wants the state of Hawaii to verify that the birth certificate released by President Obama is the real deal.

The obsession with the president’s birth certificate is mind-numbing and a bit difficult to understand. At a certain point, I’d expect people to come to grips with what we now fully accept as the truth. Obama was born in the United States and has every right to run for a second term.

(Photo: Wikicommons)

By Andre Showell

You should never judge a book by its cover. I know it’s a cliché but it’s also the plain old truth. I learned that lesson this week after I traveled with colleagues to the Republican National Committee Convention walk-through in Tampa, Florida. In addition to checking out the lay of the land for the upcoming convention, we also had a chance to spend some quality time with some of the movers and shakers behind the Republican Party.

James Davis, the director of communications and chief spokesman for the RNC Convention, was one of the most engaging.  Beneath the pinstripe suits and wingtip shoes lies an interesting story that separates this husband and father of two from any preconceived notions many people have about Republicans.

While James is a vocal supporter of Republican ideals, he has a personal journey that was far from typical.  He grew up in Vidalia, Georgia, in a poor neighborhood. He said his was the only white family in a Black community, so he has never been afraid to stand out.  His experience also explained the apparent ease with which he seemed to connect with our all-African American delegation of staffers.

James explained that he, like many in the Black community, is the product of teen parents and was raised by his grandparents.  And despite a less-than-ideal upbringing, he worked his way through school by waiting tables, until his fate changed. During one of his shifts, he waited on a customer who changed the course of his life. That customer happened to be a former assistant secretary of defense who ended up helping him land an internship at the Department of Defense during the Bush administration. James took the offer, got a loan to cover his expenses and was eventually hired as a researcher.

And the rest is history. He ascended the ranks of the GOP and today plays a key role in the election bid of the presumptive Republican nominee, Mitt Romney.

This political operative knows more about the needs and concerns of the struggling and underserved than I ever will. And while he knows what it’s like to live life along the margins of society, when opportunity knocked, he was ready to open the door.

(Photo: LARRY DOWNING/Landov)

By Andre Showell

President Obama began the day with a mission: convincing Congress to move into action before their summer recess, even though it’s an election year. He started the day by visiting a small business in Washington, D.C., with the goal of urging Congress to pass legislation that gives a 10 percent income tax credit to firms that create jobs and wage increases.

Republicans have always prided themselves in being the party that stands for businesses, but with today’s visit and the subsequent round table with small business leaders, the president appears to be poised to gain some cred with job creators.

But it was the midweek, midday lunch that the White House Press Corps wanted to know about. Oh to be a fly on the wall at the president’s lunch appointment with House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. They dined on sandwiches from local deli The Taylor Gourmet. But was bipartisanship on their plates?

White House Spokesman Jay Carney described the meeting as congenial, saying, “The president urged the leaders to act on additional measures to move on the to-do list he issued, which includes the kinds of priorities that we should be able to work together on to support the middle class.”

But the looming debt crisis was likely the unwanted guest at the lunch. With Republicans echoing the call for reduced spending and Democrats calling for a balanced approach that preserves entitlements, there are concerns that we could be in for a repeat of last summer’s showdown that put the economy on the brink of default. Carney said, “The president made clear we are not going to re-create the debt ceiling debacle. It is not acceptable to hold the economy hostage to one party’s political ideology.”

It appears that the lunch produced no agreement between the two parties to get to the bottom of the problem, so get ready for a new theatrical production of last summer’s flop called “The Debt Ceiling Debacle: Part II.”