HOME > News > Recent Stories

President Obama Meets Democrats at the Newseum

By Sharon Shahid, senior Web editor

WASHINGTON — Advising Democratic leaders to remember why they became involved in politics, President Barack Obama urged them Wednesday to "finish the job, even though it's hard."

Obama spoke at the Senate Democratic Conference Feb. 3 at the Newseum, following a similar question-and-answer meeting he held with House Republican leaders Jan. 29.

In his Q&A with the Democrats, Obama responded to questions on China, health-care reform, the budget deficit, energy policy and the holdup in confirming judicial and federal appointments.

Obama blamed partisanship on the gridlock in government and cited the top vacancy at the General Services Administration.

"They're blocking [the GSA administrator appointment] because of some unrelated matter, and that has to stop," he said.

Governing "can't be about just scoring points," he said. "If you want to govern, then you can't just say no."

Obama called for a "genuine spirit of compromise, instead of just shutting the place down."

He said the Democrats must "constantly have our cards out on the table and welcome challenges." He added that the more open and transparent Democrats are, the better off they are.

Obama acknowledged that Democrats have lost the public's trust, which he partly attributed to "bad timing" in the economic and financial collapse at the beginning of his administration. He made an analogy to a cartoon character that is handed a ticking time bomb, though he wasn't the one who created the bomb.

When asked how Democrats should respond when asked why they should be trusted, Obama pointed to past accomplishments.

"The last time the budget was balanced was under a Democratic president," he said. "We've got to constantly make our case and not play an insider's game."

Obama suggested the leaders turn off their television sets and "just go talk to folks out there," instead of being inside an "echo chamber" where the topic is constantly politics.

"The mistake I made last year was not getting out here enough," he said.

Obama said Democrats should not be afraid to explain their policies and explain to the American people that the problems are not going to be solved overnight.

"I'm confident that good policy over the long term is good politics," he said.

Will You Be My Co-Anchor?

Indulge your passion for news with a sweetheart of a deal Feb. 8-14 at the Newseum.

During this week of romance, buy one full price adult general-admission ticket and get a second ticket free. Plus, record your love message at the "Be A TV Reporter" station and get a free download to share with family and friends.

Mention "Will You Be My Co-Anchor?" at the admissions desk to take advantage of these hot deals.

This offer is not available online and cannot be combined with other discounts. Tickets must be used together on the day of purchase and are valid for two consecutive days.

With historic headlines, moving images and powerful interactive exhibits, the Newseum lets you experience some of the biggest events in history.

And you'll never know who you'll run into.

On Saturday, Feb. 13, join authors John Heilemann and Mark Halperin as they discuss their best-selling book "Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime."

Seating is on a space-available basis.

Women Jurists Hold Court at Newseum

By Sharon Shahid and Andrea Silen

Watch Video:
• • The number of women in public vs. private practice is discussed.
• • Female attire in the Supreme Court is discussed.
• • The panel addresses balancing a career and a family.
• • Justice O'Connor says the gains women have made will not be reversed.

WASHINGTON — "What are we doing about it?"

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor posed that question to a panel of female lawyers regarding the subtle barriers women still face more than 130 years after Belva Lockwood became the first Supreme Court advocate in 1879.

O'Connor, who served 25 years on the Supreme Court before retiring in 2006, moderated the program held Feb. 28 at the Newseum and sponsored by the Supreme Court Fellows Program Alumni Association and the First Amendment Center.

Panelists Wendy Webster Williams, a professor of law at Georgetown University; U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Maureen Mahoney, a partner at Latham & Watkins in Washington, D.C., participated in the program titled "Women Advocates of the Supreme Court Bar: Their Day in Court."

Issues such as the dearth of women jurists in many law firms — including inside the Solicitor General's office — balancing work and home, and even what women should wear in the courtroom, were issues they said women continue to confront.

"We're doing better, but it's still a rocky road," said Williams. "I'm impressed with how much hasn't changed."

The panel said women are more likely to represent public interest groups and public law offices at the Supreme Court. 

Kagan, who argued her first case at the Supreme Court in 2009, said women "always have to be aware of the way people are perceiving you." But "in the end, you have to be yourself and have people accept you on your own terms."

Mahoney, who has argued before the Supreme Court 21 times, suggested women "show up as the best prepared and wow them with your talent."

Mahoney described what she called a "breadwinner mentality," where "men think they have to support their families financially, and women are much more likely to think, 'one of my key jobs in life is to nurture my children.'"

"The best thing that could happen," she added, is that [men develop] their "nurturing instinct, which leads to a discussion on paternity leave" and how that has been helpful.

The panelists agreed that an increase in female judges has changed the culture in the courtroom.

O'Connor said she did not think the opinions of female judges at the appellate level carried more weight than those of men.

"There are only so many members on an appellate court," she said. "You're going to take every vote you can get."

50 Years Ago in News History: Greensboro Sit-Ins

By Cynthia Rudolph

Feb. 1, 1960. Four African-American students in Greensboro, N.C., walked up to the lunch counter at F.W. Woolworth, quietly took seats in the "whites-only" section and asked to be served.

The students — Ezill Blair Jr., David Richmond, Joseph McNeil and Franklin McCain — attended the Agricultural and Technical College of North Carolina, a historically black college. When service was denied, they refused to leave the lunch counter, staying until the store closed at 5:30 p.m.

Their act of openly defying racial segregation marked the historic beginning of the student-led protest movement and put in motion a civil rights strategy that impelled future rallies and sit-ins.

The four men returned the next day with dozens of other students who were prepared to take their places at the counter. The students were given instructions in nonviolent behavior and were encouraged to dress professionally. The sit-ins soon ignited similar protests throughout the South.

Media coverage was varied. Some newspapers covered the demonstrations as Page-One news. Others buried the story on inside pages.

The students' persistence paid off.

By October, Woolworth's and several other variety store chains had integrated their lunch counters in 112 cities, including Greensboro. In the next three years, hundreds more cities followed suit.

The story of the Greensboro sit-ins, along with a section of the counter and two stools from Woolworth's, are currently on display in the News Corporation News History Gallery.

First Amendment Watch

Mass. high court: Sexual instant messages to minors are legal

By The Associated Press

Monday, February 8, 2010

BOSTON — The state's highest court has overturned the conviction of a man accused of sending sexually graphic instant messages to a 13-year-old girl, ruling that such messages aren't banned by Massachusetts law.

Matt Zubiel of Beverly was arrested in 2006 after driving to Marshfield to meet with the girl, who really was a Plymouth County Deputy Sheriff, authorities said. The next year, he was convicted of four counts of attempting to disseminate harmful material to a minor.

But in his appeal, Zubiel argued that the "harmful material" banned under the law didn't include sexually explicit instant messages, and the Supreme Judicial Court agreed on Feb. 5.

Justice Francis X. Spina wrote in Commonwealth v. Zubiel that the Legislature may have intended to make such messages illegal, but it never specifically did so.

"If the Legislature wishes to include instant messaging or other electronically transmitted text in the definition ... it is for the Legislature, not the court, to do so," he wrote.

A number for Zubiel could not be immediately located. His attorney declined comment for this story.

Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz said he was disappointed with the ruling and called for lawmakers to update the statute.

"I think the SJC could have gone the other way with this, but in light of the fact that they haven't, I think now it's time for us to change the laws," he said. "Our kids today live in a cyberworld and I think for the most part, the cyberworld didn't exist when these laws were created."

State Sen. Cynthia Creem, chair of the Judiciary Committee, said she planned to file legislation to make obscene instant messages to minors illegal.

"It's incumbent on us to bring this law into the 21st century," said Creem, D-Newton.

The case began in February 2006, when a Plymouth County Deputy Sheriff Melissa Marino set up an Internet profile, described herself as 13 years old and invited people to contact her.

The then-25-year-old Zubiel began having online conversations with Marino by instant message. He eventually told her he'd like to teach her how to perform oral sex and was arrested at a Marshfield apartment complex where he had arranged to meet her, according to court papers. Police said Zubiel admitted "the thought was there for him to have sex with this minor."

Zubiel was convicted in a jury-waived trial and sentenced to a year in prison.

In his appeal, Zubiel argued that though the law listed more than a dozen examples of the obscene "matter" that adults can't give to minors, it didn't include instant messages.

The court considered whether instant messages could be included under three of the examples listed in the statute, but decided they didn't fit.

The SJC said the messages were not a "visual representation" of sexually explicit material, ruling that included only photographs and other images — not text. It ruled the instant messages weren't handwritten material because they weren't written with pen or pencil. And it said they weren't printed material because there was no paper involved.

David Yas, editor-in-chief of Lawyers Weekly, said the ruling was "a classic case of a law that hasn't been properly updated."

"Sometimes it needs a wake-up call like a case like this, to get all the way up to the Supreme Judicial Court ... before the alarm gets sounded," Yas said. "The good news is if this is a wake-up call, (the law) could, in fact, be fixed permanently."