Continuous Productivity

Some More Red and Blue Light

In early September, when Sarah Palin, the Republican candidate for Vice-President, announced that her unwed seventeen-year-old daughter, Bristol, was pregnant, many liberals were shocked, not by the revelation but by the reaction to it. They expected the news to dismay the evangelical voters that John McCain was courting with his choice of Palin. Yet reports from the floor of the Republican Convention, in St. Paul, quoted dozens of delegates who seemed unfazed, or even buoyed, by the news. A delegate from Louisiana told CBS News, “Like so many other American families who are in the same situation, I think it’s great that she instilled in her daughter the values to have the child and not to sneak off someplace and have an abortion.” A Mississippi delegate claimed that “even though young children are making that decision to become pregnant, they’ve also decided to take responsibility for their actions and decided to follow up with that and get married and raise this child.” Palin’s family drama, delegates said, was similar to the experience of many socially conservative Christian families. As Marlys Popma, the head of evangelical outreach for the McCain campaign, told National Review, “There hasn’t been one evangelical family that hasn’t gone through some sort of situation.” In fact, it was Popma’s own “crisis pregnancy” that had brought her into the movement in the first place.

During the campaign, the media has largely respected calls to treat Bristol Palin’s pregnancy as a private matter. But the reactions to it have exposed a cultural rift that mirrors America’s dominant political divide. Social liberals in the country’s “blue states” tend to support sex education and are not particularly troubled by the idea that many teen-agers have sex before marriage, but would regard a teen-age daughter’s pregnancy as devastating news. And the social conservatives in “red states” generally advocate abstinence-only education and denounce sex before marriage, but are relatively unruffled if a teen-ager becomes pregnant, as long as she doesn’t choose to have an abortion.

A very good article at The New Yorker outlining the paradoxical views on sex of evangelicals.

It's Time to Change the World!

Go Barack the Vote!

Prankin' Palin

Please listen to the entire thing:

Also, if you get a chance check out the press release and transcript. This is the woman that might one day lead our country. Scary. And nauseating.

What is Elitism?

A key argument for Palin, in essence, is this: Washington and Wall Street are serving their own interests rather than those of the broad whole of the country, and the moment requires a vice president who will, Cincinnatus-like, help a new president come to the rescue. The problem with the argument is that Cincinnatus knew things. Palin sometimes seems an odd combination of Chauncey Gardiner from "Being There" and Marge from "Fargo."

Is this an elitist point of view? Perhaps, though it seems only reasonable and patriotic to hold candidates for high office to high standards. Elitism in this sense is not about educational or class credentials, not about where you went to school or whether you use "summer" as a verb. It is, rather, about the pursuit of excellence no matter where you started out in life. Jackson, Lincoln, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Clinton were born to ordinary families, but they spent their lives doing extraordinary things, demonstrating an interest in, and a curiosity about, the world around them. This is much less evident in Palin's case.

It's a shame that his opponents frame Barack's "pursuit of excellence" as "elitist".

Disgusting

It wasn’t always thus with McCain. In February he loudly disassociated himself from a speaker who brayed “Barack Hussein Obama” when introducing him at a rally in Ohio. Now McCain either backpedals with tardy, pro forma expressions of respect for his opponent or lets second-tier campaign underlings release boilerplate disavowals after ugly incidents like the chilling Jim Crow-era flashback last week when a Florida sheriff ranted about “Barack Hussein Obama” at a Palin rally while in full uniform.

A well written, scary op-ed piece. Check it out. What's truly scary and down-right abominable is that the McCain camp is plainly invoking murderous rants:

No less disconcerting was a still-unexplained passage of Palin’s convention speech: Her use of an unattributed quote praising small-town America (as opposed to, say, Chicago and its community organizers) from Westbrook Pegler, the mid-century Hearst columnist famous for his anti-Semitism, racism and violent rhetorical excess. After an assassin tried to kill F.D.R. at a Florida rally and murdered Chicago’s mayor instead in 1933, Pegler wrote that it was “regrettable that Giuseppe Zangara shot the wrong man.” In the ’60s, Pegler had a wish for Bobby Kennedy: “Some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow falls.”

This is the writer who found his way into a speech by a potential vice president at a national political convention. It’s astonishing there’s been no demand for a public accounting from the McCain campaign. Imagine if Obama had quoted a Black Panther or Louis Farrakhan — or William Ayers — in Denver.

Truthful McCain?

Been busy and haven't had much time to post, but I couldn't let this one slide:

How Wise are Crowds?

The Wisdom of Crowds has been touted as panacea for the prediction markets. The criticisms, though, of late are coming fast and furious. WSJ gets on the wagon:

The problem with these markets, Mr. Plott says, isn't that they are thinly traded, a common complaint, but that they are often plagued by bad information. That leads to bubbles, head-fakes and manipulation -- just like in the stock markets.

The people who bought Rudy Giuliani presidential futures had no better insight than the people who bought Yahoo at $100 a share.

I happen to agree. I think the bulk of these markets, just like any market, are driven by misinformed and under-informed traders that parse the same information from the same news sources. So, you have people trading on information from the media that has been proven wrong time and again.

Election Math

An excellent analysis by the University of Virginia's Larry J. Sabato:

On the morning after Pennsylvania, she insisted that she had taken a narrow popular-vote lead, about 15.12 million to nearly 15 million for Obama. But this is classic "new math", where the numerical answer obtained is often less important than the agile mental gymnastics used to get there.

Clinton's total relies on two very dubious assumptions. First, one must incorporate the primary results from Florida and Michigan, two January contests excluded by the Democratic National Committee for violating the scheduling rules set by the party. This is no minor sum of votes - 2,344,318, to be exact.

But no even-handed person would contend that Michigan, whose primary occurred on 15 January, should be part of the equation. Barack Obama's name was not even on the ballot.

The vote total cited by Clinton conveniently excludes three caucus states won by Obama, in Iowa, Maine, and Washington. (Nevada, won by Clinton, is also left out of the tally.) No-one knows the exact number of votes cast for each candidate in these four states since the state parties, by tradition, refuse to release the data.

Eliminating Michigan, the Obama-Clinton match-up shows an Obama edge of a couple hundred thousand votes. Striking Florida brings it to about a half-million-vote Obama plurality. And the unknown caucus results would add at least 100,000 to his lead.

I would suggest reading the entire piece. The explanation he provides is both concise and very informative.

Exactly

Some Light on Pledged Delegates

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign intends to go after delegates whom Barack Obama has already won in the caucuses and primaries if she needs them to win the nomination.

This strategy was confirmed to me by a high-ranking Clinton official on Monday. And I am not talking about superdelegates, those 795 party big shots who are not pledged to anybody. I am talking about getting pledged delegates to switch sides.

What? Isn’t that impossible? A pledged delegate is pledged to a particular candidate and cannot switch, right?

Wrong.

It makes more sense why Hillary is fighting this out until the end.  I suppose the Clinton campaign's hope is that they win enough big states and shift momentum to get the pledged Obama delegates to reconsider.  This could get a lot messier after April 22nd if Clinton takes Pennsylvania like she is supposed to.

Andreessen AND Obama

It has been a while since Marc Andreessen has posted.  So, this morning when my feeds indicated that my Andreessen folder had a new post, I clicked right away.

Marc was kind enough to recap a meeting he had with Barack Obama prior to the start of the campaign season in early 2007.  He recaps the meeting and his perceptions of Senator Obama.  Again, anyone who knows me well, knows how I feel about each of these gentlemen- as inspirations, as leaders, and most importantly as men that break molds.  So, I was excited as I have been in a while to read Marc's perception of Senator Obama.  The salient points:

First, this is a normal guy.

I've spent time with a lot of politicians in the last 15 years.  Most of them talk at you.  Listening is not their strong suit -- in fact, many of them aren't even very good at faking it.

Senator Obama, in contrast, comes across as a normal human being, with a normal interaction style, and a normal level of interest in the people he's with and the world around him.

Normal and Smart:

Second, this is a smart guy.

I bring this up for two reasons. One, Senator Obama's political opponents tend to try to paint him as some kind of lightweight, which he most definitely is not. Two, I think he's at or near the top of the scale of intelligence of anyone in political life today.

You can see how smart he is in his background -- for example, lecturer in constitutional law at University of Chicago; before that, president of the Harvard Law Review.

But it's also apparent when you interact with him that you're dealing with one of the intellectually smartest national politicians in recent times, at least since Bill Clinton. He's crisp, lucid, analytical, and clearly assimilates and synthesizes a very large amount of information -- smart.

Please go read the entire post, it will be well worth your time.

Fear-Mongering: Bush Style

I don't know what's worse, using a picture as a scare tactic, or the ignorance of those that let obvious manipulations determine their voting direction:

The photograph published on Monday shows Mr Obama - whose father came from Kenya - wearing a white turban and a white robe presented to him by elders in the north-east of the country.

The Drudge Report said the image had been circulated by "Clinton staffers".

Best Picture I've Seen Today

Well It's Official: Clinton or Obama vs McCain

Mitt Romney, the former CEO, has bowed out of the presidential race.  So, it would seem that at this point, it is down to the Democratic nominee versus McCain in November.

I am still not convinced that there isn't a dark horse lurking in the wings (no, I don't mean this guy) by the name of Bloomberg.  It almost seems too perfect: the nominee that no Republican wants to see as president, versus a minority male, and/or a female.  I have a distinct feeling that Mayor Bloomberg has been paying special attention to how all of this has played out and his exploratory committee will announce something real soon.  He has the financial clout, the backing of the business world, and renounced his party ties for just this moment.  It's going to be exciting to see what happens.

On Another McCain Note

You'll find me pointing to Andreessen a lot on this blog.  Not only because he is a fellow UofI alum, or that he is one of the people responsible for the greatest technological revolution of our time, or that he is a personal inspiration, but because I happen to think his posts rock.  Case in point.

The Amazing McCain Comeback

I have been fascinated by the comeback of John McCain the last 1.5 months (and as a sidebar, the lack of a real Guiliani campaign).  I am very surprised that it has not been well-chronicled here in the states, but the BBC takes a crack it at.  I was astonished to learn that as late as December 9th, McCain was supported by less than 12% of Republicans. 

I have always been fascinated by McCain the man, but there is a downside to his relentless pursuit of the Republican nomination:

To keep his campaign going, Mr McCain had to rely on many of his key aides working for free, and a group of volunteer fundraisers to appeal for cash.

His internet fundraising director, Rebecca Donatelli, said: "We were down to nobody. To nothing. But somehow it was OK because Senator McCain was in the room."

But Mr McCain managed to secure a $3m loan from his local bank in Washington, Fidelity Trust, secured against future campaign revenues.

According to newspaper reports, the bank also took out an insurance policy against his life to make sure they would be repaid if he did not survive the campaign.

It is surely a great comeback, but I wonder how the lack of fund raising will play out against either the Clinton or Obama financial juggernaut.

Speechwriting for Ted Williams

A very good friend of mine, Snehal Mehta, recently forwarded this NY Times profile on Obama speechwriter, Jon Favreau.  Favreau is only 26 years old, but an integral part of the Obama team:

...Favs, as everyone calls him, looks every bit his age, with a baby face and closely shorn stubble. And he leads a team of two other young speechwriters: 26-year-old Adam Frankel, who worked with John F. Kennedy’s adviser and speechwriter Theodore C. Sorensen on his memoirs, and Ben Rhodes, who, at 30, calls himself the “elder statesman” of the group and who helped write the Iraq Study Group report as an assistant to Lee H. Hamilton.

Together they are working for a politician who not only is known for his speaking ability but also wrote two best-selling books and gave the much-lauded keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

“You’re like Ted Williams’s batting coach,” Mr. Favreau said.

Election Lackeys Use Dirty Tactics

The Freakonomics blog had an excellent Q&A with Allen Raymond, former GOP political operative.  Amongst his more interesting answers:

Q: You discuss the “spinning of truth” that’s common practice in modern politics. What are the most frequent tactics employed?

A: Instead of tactics, how about a lesson from the master of spin himself, President William Jefferson Clinton? As a graduate student in 1992, I marveled when then-Governor Clinton spun a potential candidacy-killing story and outmaneuvered 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft during an interview about Clinton’s alleged affair with Gennifer Flowers. The masterstroke wasn’t when he blamed it on checkbook journalism, saying, “It was only when money came out, when the tabloids went down there offering people money to say they had been involved with me, that she changed her story.” No, it was when he immediately added, “There’s a recession going on.”

In ten seconds, Clinton went from denying a sordid sex scandal to bashing President George H. W. Bush on the economy. But more than that, he was actually pointing at Bush’s recession as the reason poor Ms. Flowers had to debase herself in the press. In this way, Clinton did all of the following simultaneously: got back to the message, “It’s the economy, stupid;” dismissed Flowers as a gold digger; and delivered it all with an air of compassion for his accuser that would satisfy the liberal female voters he needed to win the Democratic nomination. That kind of unparalleled spin talent deserves respect.

Spin is about bridging from the defensive to the offensive with a well-timed turn of phrase. In every attack, the devil is in the details, and fortunes can turn on those devilish details when they are manipulated adeptly. All too often, it is the overconfident who take it in the teeth, as Walter Mondale will attest; he thought he had Ronald Reagan dead to rights on the age issue after Reagan’s tired performance during their first presidential debate. When the issue arose in the second debate, President Reagan left Mondale in the dust by answering, “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”

I always find books/articles that give an insider's perspective very interesting, and this is no different.  I will definitely be reading, How to Rig and Election.

Also, earlier Freakonomics did a similar Q&A with Joseph Cummins, the author of Anything for a Vote: Dirty Tricks, Cheap Shots, and October Surprises.

Clinton Wins Nevada

Looks like it's going to be an uphill battle for Obama on February 5th.

Another Surprise - People Should be Able to Change Their Minds

Thanks to Casnocha (another must read), I was able to find this Washington Monthly piece.  In summation, it's ridiculous to think that politicians (just like all people) shouldn't be able to change their minds. 

Election Boxing

For the most part, this Time article is typical wannabe punditry.  I don't care too much for the author's analysis about the break in the democratic party's foundation.  Perhaps, I am jaded by the New Hampshire prognoses and the actual result.  Nevertheless, the piece does provide a nice synopsis of the tiff:

The mess began —as these things almost always do — in a normal tit for tat between the candidates. After Obama was poised to surge past Clinton after Iowa, Clinton charged that Obama was raising "false hopes" with his soaring rhetoric that emphasized ends over means. Obama skewered Clinton right back in New Hampshire, asking where the nation would be if both JFK — in making a manned mission to the moon a goal — or Martin Luther King Jr. (in his 1963 Lincoln Memorial speech) had instead shut down their visions and told America they were simply too hard to achieve. Delivered with humor and always to soaring applause, Obama's was a devastating rejoinder.

But then Clinton came back and, far less artfully, said that King's visions were great, but it took an experienced politician like Lyndon Johnson to get them enacted. At the very least, Clinton had equated the sometimes crass master of the legislative backroom with one of America's patron saints. (The real problem is that Clinton seemed to put LBJ on a pedestal higher than King's.) That was probably not her intention, but neither was this her best example in the deeds-not-words crusade she was on. In any case, at that point, things began to unravel.

Of course, the tiff ended this morning.   Perhaps, there is something to be said about party-unity.  Although, the skeptic in me believes this is just smart campaigning. 

Daddy's Getting Old

Via Chicago-based RealClearPolitics.com, some very interesting information that is oftentimes forgotten during election years:

Our children face a future of rising taxes, squeezed -- and perhaps falling -- public services, and aging -- perhaps deteriorating -- public infrastructure (roads, sewers, transit systems). Today's young workers and children are about to be engulfed by a massive income transfer from young to old that will perversely make it harder for them to afford their own children.

It is an unwritten rule in politics that one must pander to what the masses want to hear rather than discuss or effectuate real change.  As such it is not surprising that:

No major candidate of either party proposes to do much about [the aforementioned problems] even though the facts are well-known.

Spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- three programs that go overwhelmingly to older Americans -- already represents more than 40 percent of federal spending. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office projects these programs could equal about 70 percent of the present budget by 2030. Without implausibly large budget deficits, the only way to preserve most other government programs would be huge tax increases (about 40 percent from today's levels). Avoiding the tax increases would require draconian cuts in other programs (about 60 percent). Workers and young families, not retirees, would bear the brunt of either higher taxes or degraded public services.

The numbers mentioned above, at least to this observer, are utterly shocking.  70% of our budget will go on spending for the dirty three.  40% tax increases or 60% cuts in other programs just to keep the dirty three breathing. 

As much as I loathe the Bush administration, I have to admit they have at least attempted (or least embodied the perception) to address these prickly problems.  Of course, like everything else the administration has attempted, it failed miserably.  I suppose they don't award brownie points for trying.

As a young American, one of the most disheartening aspects of how the dirty three were dealt with is that they were NOT dealt with:

Ideally, prospective retirees would have received several decades' warning; but we've delayed too long. We need to cut benefits for baby boomers and even some existing retirees. They are the source of mounting costs.

I understand, oftentimes procrastination is unavoidable and probably innate, but it certainly should not be in the milieu of our politics.  We, rightfully, expect more from our leaders and instead it seems that we are going to be left holding the bag because they were afraid to tell Daddy (baby boomers) about the bad report card.  Not only did they not tell Daddy, our politicians acted as if the problem didn't exist and would go away on its own.  Oh, and guess what, just when it is absolutely urgent to cut these benefits, the size of the boomers is going to double.  You don't need me to do the math of how vexing an economic problem this is. 

Big Comeback

Hillary takes New Hampshire.

This one stings a bit.  Especially, given all the early projections indicating that this was a sure win for Barack.  As much as Barack looks at himself as an underdog, I believe he too was shocked.  His speech, his choice of music, his reactions all indicated that they were expecting to take New Hampshire.

It will be interesting to see how his campaign reacts in South Carolina and Nevada.  I wonder if this stinging defeat was a case of not adjusting appropriately to New Hampshire voters, or rather a case of Hillary being close to her power base and tweaking her campaign to be more "emotional."  I suppose we will know very soon.  But, this was not a good night.

Good News (I Hope)

This seems like a huge jump because I could have sworn Hillary and Barack were dead even less than 24 hours ago.  Apparently Barack has built up a 13-point lead in New Hampshire.  Hopefully, he can leverage this momentum ahead of the final results.

Barry Obama!

Great start in Iowa.  Hopefully, it is a precursor to what lies ahead.  This Atlantic Monthly profile is one of the better reads as to why Barack should be our next president.