TV is great at serving up drama. And there was human drama aplenty in the legal battle over whether a feeding tube should be removed from Terry Schiavo. The Florida woman, diagnosed as brain-damaged, passed on Thursday morning.

It was a painful spectacle. Fortunately, Terry Schiavo, confined to a hospital bed for 15 years, did not have to watch her relatives battling each other in the courts and on the airwaves as she lay dying.

Much of the wall-to-wall coverage on cable TV was over the top. Hours of airtime were filled with dramatic reporters interviewing – and re-interviewing --- anyone with even a tangential connection to the case and speculating about how long Ms. Schiavo might survive without a feeding tube.

But Terry Schiavo’s saga also triggered nationwide consideration of the complex moral issues surrounding end of life care and the role of faith in American life.

And in the examination of the role of faith, last Sunday’s ‘Meet the Press” was a singular broadcast achievement, one I would urge you to review both for its inspiring and thought provoking content and as an illustration of what TV at its very best can accomplish. A transcript of the broadcast is available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7284978.

For a full hour, host Tim Russert and his guests engaged in an insightful, highly articulate, and profoundly thought-provoking discussion titled “Faith in America.”

Unlike many TV programs which serve up complex issues as having just two sides, last Sunday’s Meet the Press program offered up a fairly widely range of viewpoints including:

* Reza Aslan, Muslim author of “No God but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam”
* Jesuit priest Robert Drinan, a professor of law at Georgetown University
* Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention
* Rev. Jim Wallis, author of “God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t get it”
* Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the first Jewish candidate for vice president

It was refreshing to see the discussion of controversial issues without panelists resorting to verbal mudslinging or disparagement or obvious attempts at scoring debating points.

It is hard to overstate the impact of the respectful yet probing questioning by host Tim Russert who came to this discussion – as he does every Sunday’s broadcast – awesomely prepared.

Russert and his producers treated the audience as being composed of individuals who would be interested in matters of faith without having to use the hook of drama.

And, perhaps most striking, Russert dealt with religion not just as a force that motivates voters politically. He also posed questions about the nature of God and His care for us.

At the end of the discussion Russert said: "I wish we had two more hours.”

To which I would add: Amen.

If personnel is policy, then President Bush’s recent staffing decisions at the State Department clearly signal Foggy Bottom’s re-emergence as a major power center.

Washington was abuzz this weekend about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s sense of style and her political prospects.

Dr. Rice showed up at the Gridiron Dinner on Saturday outfitted in a striking bright red formal gown that landed her on the front page of the Washington Post’s Style Section under the headline “Careful, that dish is hot.” The formal dinner, sponsored by a group of senior print and broadcast journalists, draws an influential crowd including both the president and vice president.

On Sunday’s “Face the Nation” broadcast on CBS, Rice quipped, “I think the lesson here is never to wear red, apparently.”

The Secretary spent much of Sunday trying to knock down rumors she would run for president in 2008. “I will not run for president of the United States,” she told Tim Russert on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I don’t know how many ways to say no in this town, I really don’t.”

Then, on Monday, the White House announced that two more powerful women, both close confidantes of the president, would be moving to State. Long time Bush political advisor and wordsmith Karen Hughes will be returning to Washington as Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, charged with telling America’s story to the world.

Speaking in the ornate Benjamin Franklin Room in the State Department, Hughes said she was “eager to listen and to learn” and that she wanted to help the president “overcome hate with hope.” While admitting that “perceptions do not change quickly or easily,” Hughes concluded that she intended “to speak from the heart” in telling America’s story to the world.

Hughes, who left Washington in 2002 so her son could finish high school in Texas, has long been one of the President’s closest advisors. Given her unquestioned loyalty to him and the length of their relationship, Hughes reportedly can speak candidly with Mr. Bush.

The White House also said that Dina Powell would be Karen Hughes’ deputy. While not known to the general public, Ms. Powell (no relation to Colin Powell) has been the president’s personnel director and thus has been a key player in selecting candidates for top jobs in the administration.

Ms. Powell, who is only 31, was born in Egypt and came to the United States as a child. As ABC News’ influential online newsletter “The Note” points out, Powell is the highest ranking Middle Eastern woman in the administration and speaks Arabic.

These hires “make it clear the State Department is becoming the kind of power center it hasn’t been since the days of [former Secretaries of State] James Baker and maybe even Henry” Kissinger, The Note observes.

Of course, the challenge of improving America’s image abroad requires more than domestic political clout. When she introduced Ms. Hughes on Monday, Rice said the US “must do a better job of engaging the Muslim word” and that more needs to be done to counter the “hateful propaganda” that is common in the Islamic world.

Rice’s rise to power was lampooned at the Gridiron dinner. While the evening is off the record, lyrics from the songs performed during the four-hour dinner are released to the press. Using music from “When I Was A Lad” by Gilbert and Sullivan, a journalist sang about Rice:

When I was a Stanford professor,
I tutored a certain Texas governor.
I showed him the countries on a great big map,
And I never scolded him when he made a gaffe.
I tutored Dubya so charmingly
That now I am a cabinet secretary.

Now Republicans all, in this age of Bush
If you want to triumph, get up early and push
To land a job that’s truly cool
You should always be guided by this Golden Rule:

Stick close by his side
And never tell him “no”
And there will be no limit
To where you may go.

It is not clear where Rice and her policies may go. What is clear is that President Bush – perhaps focused on his legacy – has placed an extraordinary collection of strong, totally trusted women at a department that was viewed with suspicion in the administration during his first term.

It is something many of us who have hit middle age would appreciate: a photograph where our head sits on a younger, trimmer body.

Newsweek bestowed this photographic favor on domestic diva Martha Stewart who graces the cover of the magazine’s March 7 issue. When Newsweek hit newsstands, Ms. Stewart was still in prison. But on the cover there she was, smiling radiantly, dressed preppily, her svelte body framed by gold curtains.

Lynn Staley, assistant managing editor of Newsweek, told National Public Radio that, “It was not our intention to deceive; it was our intention to amuse.”

Newsweek disclosed that the cover was a photo illustration – or composite – on page 3 of the magazine in a credit line. It’s an area of the magazine normally of interest only to the cover photographer’s mother.

When NPR asked if she had any regrets, Newsweek’s Ms. Staley said, “I think that, you know, we have to be a little careful. I mean, maybe the worst thing I could say is that we were possibly just a little too successful here.”

Actually, the worst thing that could be said was the news business needs to be especially careful not to look like it plays fast and loose with the truth – photographic or otherwise. Inside the journalism fraternity we have our own rules and understandings. In that context, labeling the cover a “photo illustration” removes any question that Newsweek was trying to lie.

But clearly many readers were misled. The Monitor’s own policy on computerized photo editing specifies that, “Everything in the Monitor must be precisely what it appears to be. Photographs that have been altered for illustration purposes should be clearly labeled.”

Newspaper conventions differ from those of magazines. But it would have been better for Newsweek to have disclosed on the cover that what readers were seeing was an altered picture of the soon to be sprung Martha.

Of course, most of the pictures we see of the famous are altered in another way, with various surgical enhancements and reductions. If you watched last Sunday’s Academy Awards, you got an eyeful of that.

Those of us who are plunging through life without surgically improved bodies can’t fail to appreciate what modern photographic editing makes possible. As I work at my computer munching on a Hershey bar, it’s nice to know that in the next Cook family portrait, my thinning white hair and multiple chins can be sitting atop Brad Pitt’s body.

In the 21-minute paean to freedom that was President Bush’s second inaugural address, the domestic portion of the talk included a pledge to “build an ownership society.”

Ownership society is the rationale the president cites when arguing that younger workers should be allowed to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes into private investment accounts. His theory: the accounts would produce greater returns than current Social Security policies and give citizens a fuller sense of owning a portion of the American economy.

But interestingly, the president and his top aides have a tightly circumscribed sense of ownership. It does not appear to extend to admitting to – or owning – policy mistakes in the first Bush term.

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post took a detailed look at this phenomenon in Thursday's Post under the headline “In 2nd term, no doubt about it; Bush and his Cabinet nominees concede and explain little.”

The story cited two examples. Last week Dr. Condoleezza Rice, the president’s nominee to be Secretary of State, spent two days testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As Milbank noted, “Rice yesterday gave a nod to Democrats' complaints, acknowledging that "bad decisions" were made but declining to cite any.

"We've made a lot of decisions in this period of time," she said. "Some of them have been good. Some of them have not been good. Some of them have been bad decisions, I'm sure. I know enough about history to stand back and to recognize that you judge decisions not at the moment but in how it all adds up."

Asked about briefings she had received on Iraq's weapons program – remember the long looked for, never found weapons of mass destruction – Dr. Rice said, "I'm sorry, I just don't remember." When senators asked her about abuse of prisoners in Iraq, she said, "I'm not going to speak to any specific interrogation techniques."

Lack of ownership was also on display when Alberto R. Gonzales, the President’s nominee for Attorney General, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. As the Post’s Milbank noted, Attorney General designate Gonzales admitted to no recollection of his role in the writing of a controversial memo that narrowly defined what constitutes torture.

In written answers to committee member Edward M. Kennedy (D) of Massachusetts, Gonzales used the words "I am not at liberty to disclose" at least 10 times; "I do not recall" or "I have no recollection" six times; I did not "conduct a search" seven times; "I am not at liberty [to discuss certain matters]" 10 times; and "I have no present knowledge" seven times.

Of course, Republicans have no corner on restrictive definitions and selective memory. Remember President Bill Clinton wondering aloud about the meaning of the word “is” as he denied sexual misconduct?

----

Last week’s presidential inauguration had clear martial overtones as 13,000 federal, state, and local law enforcement officers as well as military troops patrolled our city.

The Monitor’s Washington bureau is just one block from St. John’s Episcopal Church where President Bush worships. So the Monitor staff had a clear view of the massive security apparatus deployed to protect the president, the vice president, and their families as they worshiped on Thursday before heading to the Capitol to be sworn in.

The entrance to the section of 16th Street that contains the church was blocked off by a city bus and by multiple security officers. Both sides of the street were lined with limousines, Secret Service SUV’s, and police motorcycles.  One side of the church was also protected by an empty city bus. 

Of course, there are only so many security vehicles that can be crammed into one city block. So the most massive display of security ever seen in Washington came when President Bush traveled down Pennsylvania Avenue after taking the oath of office. During his trip to the parade reviewing stand outside the White House, the president’s new Cadillac limo was surrounded by a sea of protective vehicles.

The best observation about the scene came from ABC News analyst George Will. The conservative commentator said, “The parade is supposed to be spontaneous, cheerful. This looked like a banana republic, worried about a restive tank regiment at the edge of town. It was unworthy of the occasion.”

Will is right.  The overwhelming security presence was an unintentionally ironic counterpoint to the president's speech hailing freedom. 

Last week was a week of introspection in Washington.

Most notably, George W. Bush danced right up to – but did not cross – the line of admitting he might have actually made a mistake during his first term. Meanwhile, Democrats continued their public soul searching about the best way to woo voters in future presidential elections.

On Thursday, President Bush invited representatives from 14 regional newspapers into the Oval Office for a pre-inaugural interview. David Lightman, a first-class reporter and bureau chief of the Hartford Courant, reported the scene as follows:

“In a first-term press conference, [the president] said he could not remember any mistakes. Thursday, Bush was more reflective.

"I think one of the things I've learned is that sometimes words have consequences you don't intend them to mean. `Bring them on' is a classic example," he said, recalling his challenge in July 2003 to Iraqis who attacked US forces.

"... I was really trying to rally the troops and make it clear to them I fully understood what a great job they were doing. Those words had an unintended consequence. Some interpreted them to be defiance in the face of danger. That certainly wasn't the case."

As usual, Bush was restless, and animated, leaning forward, grinning broadly and thrusting out his hands as he recalled a scolding from first lady Laura Bush when he said he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" in September 2001.

"It was just an expression that came out. I didn't rehearse it. It was just there," Bush recalled. "I wouldn't call it regret, but it is a lesson a president must be mindful of ... the consequences of the words."

It is probably easier to admit to having second thoughts when next week you get to travel up Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol and be sworn in for a second term as president.

There will no triumphal parade for the Democrats, however.

On Wednesday, Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D) of Massachusetts offered up his view of what Democrats must do better if they want to reclaim the White House.

“There's no doubt we must do a better job of looking within ourselves and speaking out for the principles we believe in, and for the values that are the foundation of our actions,” the Senator told an audience at the National Press Club. “Americans need to hear more, not less, about those values. We were remiss in not talking more directly about them - about the fundamental ideals that guide our progressive policies.”

Both in his Press Club speech and in a later appearance at a Monitor breakfast, Kennedy stressed that, in response to Senator Kerry’s loss, “we cannot become Republican clones. If we do, we will lose again, and deserve to lose ... the last thing this country needs is two Republican parties.”

Stanley Greenberg, who served as pollster for President Clinton and for the Kerry campaign, echoes Kennedy’s assessment about the importance of improving how Democrats communicate about values.

“Values is at the heart of why we lost,” Mr. Greenberg admits. “It is the success of [Republican] values issues and doubts about Kerry as a social liberal that in the end moved voters away from him, particularly the older blue collar voters .... I think that Democrats have to be more serious about their values - expressive about their values.”

Greenberg and his pollster daughter, Anna, were the guests at a Monitor breakfast on Friday. At the session, Anna was blunt about the pitfalls Democrats face in a renewed focus on values.

“What frustrates me about it is the suggestion that you can just change your language or you can just have a candidate who is more religious and somehow that is going to deal with what are structural differences between the parties on values issues like choice, like gay rights,” she said.

“People who are religious and who care about these issues know there are differences between the parties and changing one’s language about it does not get rid of those big differences,” she cautions.

Still, Ms. Greenberg sees values-related issues where Democrats actually have the upper hand. “There are a lot of places where our values are more mainstream than their values,” she says. Examples she cites include abstinence only education versus comprehensive sex education and access to birth control, stem cell research, and the issue of science and politics.

“There are lots of places where our values are actually in synch with where most Americans are and we have not been, I think, self conscious or bold enough to say hey, this is where we are and we have sort of let [Republicans] define what the values debate should be about.”

You can be sure the Bush definition of the nation's values will figure prominently in the President’s inaugural address this week. In an interview with USA Today's Judy Keen and Richard Benedetto, the president was asked to preview his speech. His reply: "Liberty is powerful, and freedom is peace. And that's about all I'm going to preview,” Mr. Bush said.