Clinton's Fall from Grace?

My grandmother used to tell me that you can tell the most about a person's character by how they act in face of defeat.

Winning with a big smile, or having to make an eloquent I'm-humble-even-tho-I'm-the-king-of-the-world speech isn't nearly as hard. It takes much more grace and character to lose with dignity and poise.

I'm hoping I'm wrong about this, but I'm not liking what I see in Hillary Clinton in recent days when things aren't exactly going her way. This is not the Hillary I thought I saw in her memoir, and so I'm refraining from jumping to quick conclusions. Still, my suspicions grows...

Below's the link of Caroline Kennedy's op-ed piece in the NYT yesterday on her Obama endorsement. I'm all for individual right of speech, but somehow a part of me utterly reject the idea of political legacy -- why is her opinion that much more valuable than mine just because she has a special last name?

You can say she probably has public service experience that gives her authority in matters like this, but the issue of endogeneity of how she gets these opportunities in the first place still applies.

I'm not being fair I know, but then again, other things balance out for her I'm sure.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=136614

The Clinton TKO

Watching Hillary last night I was reminded of why I liked her - smart, tough, and knowing just what she has to do to win. Others have commented that the lesson of Bush II is that one more electoral vote than the other guy is all that matters to get the keys to the car (this is exactly why I refuuse to rule out Mitt until everything is fully over). It's only after you get there that you should worry about building the grand coalition.

Hillary knows better than anyone that everytime "angry" and "Obama" are in the same sentence she wins (and there it was in the first graf above the fold in the Post). One of my favorite lines of hers was along the lines of 'I agree we should be running a positive and hopeful campaign, unfortunately you change the meaning and tone of your statements whenever someone asks you about them'. Flip flop with a twist.

More importantly, last night she finally managed to bridge the gap with Edwards. He had been hounding her non stop before last night. Yet she did a great job reframing questions from the moderators to force Obama to say things she knew that Edwards couldn't let fly by. Check out the health care question - she set Obama up to try to say mandates/universality aren't necessary, and he was totally off guard when Edwards fired back.

The point is, we are long past the time when either can KO the other, but Obama keeps wildly throwing haymakers while Clinton slowly dismantles him.

And I should add that for those who are scared to death of GI John McCain I have two words - Jim Webb. Beware the Huck!

The only thing I have to say about the Chargers whining is that for the third time in two years we have seen the same thing. Chargers spend the week before the game talking smack, Sunday rolls around and the Pats hand out the smack down (though I give Rivers a lot of credit for keeping them in the game so long), and come Monday the Bolts are whining again. Dear LT and the rest of your boys, you got a problem then show up and do something about it. Now, as Seymour said, we are thinking about the next game.

Do it or else ... or else what ... exactly

In the ongoing pointlessness that is the Israel-Palestinian conflict, the Israeli's have decided to cut off fuel supplies to Gaza. They are pissed that the rockets that have been coming over the wall for a year are still coming, so figured since regular assassinations and completely killing the economy hasn't made Gazans want to stop shooting at them maybe they can melt their hearts by cutting their electricity bills.

Seriously, the Palestinians have been getting smacked around by the world (and yes, the Arabs have not exactly been their best friends either) for DECADES. Making their lives a little shittier does not endear them to you and sure as hell isn't going to convince them to waive a white flag.

That said, I do not think the Israeli's are clueless; the point is to prop up Hamas and undercut the PA to ensure their is no "partner for peace". And that is their prerogative. But in 10-15 years when the Arab-Israeli's begin to outnumber the Jewish-Israeli's and the who Zionist dream comes crashing down, remember who it was that didn't see a good bargain when it was staring them in the face.

Congratulations to the Giants.

As the game started Joe Buck reminded us all that Favre is "the all time leader in games won, touchdowns, and completions". Unfortunately he forgot Favre is also the all time leader in throwing killer picks and not leading his team back. He managed to lead his team to 48 yards in the ENTIRE SECOND HALF AND OT, plus two picks (though they got one back leading to their TD). Truly the John McCain of the nfl.

On the other side we had Coach Coughlin going after his rookie kicker after the first miss, with the result pretty evident on the second missed kick. Kudos to the kid for not letting his jerk coach get completely under his skin and knocking down the game winner. Props to Eli as well for another solid game. Definitely looking forward to the rematch of week 17.

Watching CNN's coverage of the Nevada caucuses and the live video from the Caesar's Palace site reminded me of this Dave Chappelle skit.



Not sure what it means more broadly, but at that site there is a clear racial and demographic divide among the Obama and Clinton sides.

Philanthropy 2.0

http://mobile.nytimes.com/art/134197/23

An interesting piece on the the new Google foundation. I love that the head of it is Dr. Brilliant - I am convinced he was picked for hids name.

I know two people who have been involved in setting it up, so I am not surprised the direction they have gone in terms of aligning the charitable and business sides of Google.

However, the decisions for their initial investments are a bit odd for an organization that is trying to be game changing. From giving a chunk to Brilliant's ngo to dropping $10m to some solar firm up the road to the India reports, they seem more driven by personal preference than anything else. When Brilliant says he's met 4.5b people and 4.4b have asked him for money, it came off pretty condescending about those he is supposed to be helping.

And that they are talking about splitting $175m over a dozen initiatives makes me think they are stuck in the google programmer mentality. On the business side, you can develop a dozen ideas for $100k each and the one that pans out will be worth millions/billions. But these low investments are predicated on the existence of massive capital stocks - from ubiquitous broadband to high levels of computer literacy to the expensive education of the programmer - that do not exist in poor countries. Development isn't about finding a single killer app, it is about filling a huge capital investment gap. Stupid government reports, early warning tools, and pathetic investments in energy industries don't accomplish that.

And lest I be accused of demanding billions, there are plenty of great initiatives in the sub $10m range that accomplish this - Nothing but Nets at the UN Foundation and the Wikipedia projects to support languages other than english and write quality open source text books immediately come to mind.

Possibly the best fake ever! What made it was that they have been running that stupid direct snap for five years now. As soon as I saw it I thought running back to the two gap - but then wait, somehow it was still in Brady's hands.

While doing some Sunday evening house cleaning I figured I would turn on the Fox News Republican debate in hopes of seeing everyone keep piling on Mitt. Instead, I have gotten a mild mannered, well moderated - I would take Chris what's-his-name over Russert or Gibson any day - and at times informative civil discussion. Who are these people and what have they done with my Republican candidates!

Huckabee continues to excel, with the great "at times I have been wrong, but at least I have never had a slip in my character, a slip in my judgment" - a nice contrast with Mitt's blowing with the breeze or Rudy's character "slips".

Making sense has begun to dwindle as the debate moves to foreign policy. Rudy just claimed he was there when "terrorism started" in the 1970's. Now everyone is comparing who has been to the most countries.

UPDATE: It moves to immigration and gets worse. McCain just said his bill would have DHS round up "2 million people immediately" and kick them out, then calls for immigration to be dealt with in a "humane and compassionate way". Is he even listening to himself?!?

Like a (Granite State) Rock

I want to associate myself with everything Kevin Drum has to say about the "serious" voters in NH and Iowa. On the Dem side, NH voters are clearly running to get on the Obama train. And Iowa has only sped up the Romney bleeding, that I will argue to the end of time started with Curt Schilling - yes, the Red Sox pitcher who has more pull than God in New England - doing an ad for McCain. Very serious.

On the Clinton front, I do think she would have made the best President (when people talk about Obama having JFK-like potential, I have the same reaction as Matt Yglesias) and been far more important from a historical perspective.

Women continue to be disempowered across American society to a greater extent than in any other politically and economically developed country, and I do believe that 4-8 years of a woman in the White House would have a significant positive impact. Others counter about the impact of a black President, but even leaving aside the numbers issue (150m women vs. 35m African Americans) I think addressing "women" issues - child care/early education, women's pay, domestic violence - would have a more positive impact on the African-American community than addressing racial discrimination.

That said, as Kevin points out she decided to hire Mark Penn - a true scum bag. I don't work for the campaign (though I have friends who have), so can't say what exactly can and can't be attributed to him, but plenty of decisions have had his fingerprints and every one has rubbed me the wrong way. Would a campaign team led by people other than the old guard have put her in the lead in the first place? Who knows, but my hypothesis is that her decision to bring him and the rest of the old guard in is what did her in (and is why I am not necessarily heart broken by that outcome).

The Absurdity of Iowa

http://mobile.nytimes.com/art/129650/19

The NYT has a great piece on how completely absurd and uninclusive the Iowa caucus system is.

"Iowans begin the presidential selection process, making choices among the candidates that can heavily influence how the race unfolds. Now some are starting to ask why the first, crucial step in that process is also one that discourages so many people, especially working-class people, from participating."

The story is full of very good anecdotes from those who cannot participate - the National Guardsman in Afghanistan, the single mother with an autistic son, the local Republican party boss.

Why does such an absurd system exist?

"There is no incentive for Iowa to change this at all," said Mr. Issacharoff, of N.Y.U. "It corresponds to what Iowa wants, which is candidates spending time and resources in Iowa," in order to win supporters dedicated enough to conquer the obstacles to voting."

Thus I can understand why Iowans allow this to continue, but why the other 49 states allow themselves to be marginalized is beyond me.