Maureen Dowd raises tough questions about Sarah Palin

Maureen Dowd of the NY Times compares Sarah Palin to Eliza Doolittle and raises some questions that Sarah Palin should have to answer in her column titled ...

My Fair Veep
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: September 9, 2008, NY Times
WASILLA, Alaska

For example:
• What kind of budget-cutter makes a show of getting rid of the state plane, then turns around and bills taxpayers for the travel of her husband and kids and sticks the state with a per-diem tab to stay in her own home?

• Why was Sarah for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against the Bridge to Nowhere, and why was she for earmarks before she was against them? And doesn't all this make her just as big a flip-flopper as John Kerry?

• What kind of fiscal conservative raises taxes and increases budgets in both her jobs -- as mayor and as governor?

• When the phone rings at 3 a.m., will she call the Wasilla Assembly of God congregation and ask them to pray on a response, as she asked them to pray for a natural gas pipeline?

• Does she really think Adam, Eve, Satan and the dinosaurs mingled on the earth 5,000 years ago?

• Why put out a press release about her teenage daughter's pregnancy and then spend the next few days attacking the press for covering that press release?

• As Troopergate unfolds here -- an inquiry into whether Mrs. Palin inappropriately fired the commissioner of public safety for refusing to fire her ex-brother-in-law -- it raises this question: Who else is on her enemies list and what might she do with the FBI?

• Does she want a federal ban on trans fat in restaurants as well as on abortion and Harry Potter? And which books exactly would have landed on the literature bonfire if she had had her way with that Wasilla librarian?

• Does she talk in tongues or just eat caribou tongues?

• What does she have against polar bears?

Time for Hillary to call it quits?

I enjoyed this column by Eugene Robinson who wonders if Barack Obama had lost 10 primaries in a row, would he be under greater scrutiny than Hillary Clinton? I think so.




In this blog post titled, "The First Major Call For Hillary to Drop Out" at the National Review Online, Jim Geraghty had the following to say:

John Nichols of the Nation made an interesting remark during our radio appearance this morning - he was in Wisconsin, and he noted that in 2006 and 2007, as Hillary was running as the inevitable candidate, a lot of Democrats at many levels signed on because... well, she was inevitable. And they came with their own agendas. Some wanted jobs in her administration, some wanted to ensure they had an in with the new president, etc.

Obama's supporters and staffers signed on because they believed. The chances of a benefit or cushy appointment from President Obama seemed pretty long odds, so they were motivated by something different - actual agreement on the issues or stirred by his rhetoric or whatever.

You have to wonder how many Hillary backers, staffers, and endorsers are quietly thinking to themselves, "dang, I backed the wrong horse, how do I get out of this?"

Associated Press reporter Tom Raum thinks Clinton is "on the ropes" in this column.

She's still fighting, but it's awfully hard to find encouraging news for Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic homestretch.

She's behind in money, delegates and momentum. She's selling experience when everyone seems to want change. And all the cheering for the man who could be the first black president is drowning out any excitement for the first female.

Once deemed the nearly inevitable Democratic nominee, Clinton has now lost 10 presidential contests in a row as the battle heads for a March 4 showdown in Texas and Ohio — states she must win. By most measure.

He goes on to make the point that Clinton faces 3 major challenges:

1. "Obama has outpaced Clinton in fundraising and spending."
2. "She's behind in delegates, and the gap has been growing."
3. "Momentum? That clearly goes to Obama ..."
   

Micheal Grunwald of Time wrote a piece titled, "Clinton's Spin Machine: Spun Dry" and comments on the Clinton campaigns tendency to discount Obama's primary wins saying that they don't matter.

So maybe all these Obama victories mean something after all. Maybe they mean that voters are sick of the perpetual Clinton spin machine. At the very least, they've made it clear that the machine is broken, if not dead.

Hillary, please do the right thing. Step aside for the candidate who can and will win - Barack Obama.

Strong communication from Shell's CEO Hofmeister

As I was driving to San Francisco Monday evening, I was listening to "It's Your World" broadcast by the World Affairs Council of Northern California on our local PBS station, KQED in San Francisco (which I recently heard has the third most popular dot-org website behind Craig's List and Wikipedia).

The speaker was John Hofmeister, CEO & President of Shell Oil Company and the event was titled, "How the US Can Ensure Energy Supply for the Future." This appearance was part of a 50 city tour that Hofmeister and other Shell executives have been conducting to start a "dialogue" with the American people.

I was impressed by Hofmeister's candor and willingness to acknowledge the poor reputation that the oil industry is suffering in the media. They are experiencing record profits while gas prices are at their highest levels in history. The public's perception of his company and industry are so poor that he reports receiving a death threat in the mail - a drawing of his body hanging from a tree.

As the event was held in San Francisco, you can imagine that Hofmeister responded to questions about the companies record profits, offshore drilling, conservation, and alternative energies. Hofmeister candid and measured responses sounded both well-informed and balanced - acknowledging the US need for new sources of energy with the long-standing 100 + year dependence on oil and a highly-developed oil-based infrastructure.

I came away thinking that Hofmeister was a very effective communicator and leader. As he speaks about in the interview, Hofmeister earned a bachelor's and master's degrees in political science from Kansas State University. He comes across as erudite. and seems to fully grasp the "big picture" of his industry and is able to articulate it's dynamics extremely well.

His candor typified the qualities of transparency and authenticity that I've written about in many posts here.

You can listen to the recording, see the video or download an MP3 file of that speech at the WAF audio and video archive here.

To Act or Not to Act - The Climate Change Debate

I don't normally focus on such issues in this blog. But this video struck me as very important to pass along.

This video demonstrates that the risk of not acting on climate change FAR outweighs the risk of acting.

http://view.break.com/311805

Transparency and Reputation

Thom Friedman is one of my favorite columnists. In the column that appeared in The Santa Rosa Press Democrat (A NY Times newspaper), he writes about the transparency brought on by the blogosphere.

Reputations retained forever on the Web

THREE years ago, I was catching a plane at Boston's Logan airport and went to buy some magazines for the flight. As I approached the cash register, a woman coming from another direction got there just behind me - I thought. But when I put my money down to pay, the woman said in a very loud voice: "Excuse me, I was here first!" And then she fixed me with a piercing stare that said: "I know who you are." I said I was very sorry, but I was clearly there first.

If that happened today, I would have had a very different reaction. I would have said: "Miss, I'm so sorry. I am entirely in the wrong. Please, go ahead. And can I buy your magazines for you? May I buy your lunch? Can I shine your shoes?"

Why? Because I'd be thinking there is some chance this woman has a blog or a camera in her cell phone and could, if she so chose, tell the whole world about our encounter - entirely from her perspective - and my utterly rude, boorish, arrogant behavior. Yikes!

When everyone has a blog, a MySpace page or Facebook entry, everyone is a publisher. When everyone has a cell phone with a camera in it, everyone is a paparazzo. When everyone can upload video on YouTube, everyone is a filmmaker. When everyone is a publisher, paparazzo or filmmaker, everyone else is a public figure. We're all public figures now. The blogosphere has made the global discussion so much richer - and each of us so much more transparent.

This related to the idea of "radical transparency" that I wrote about in a previous post. I was thinking about this today.

In a YouTube world, political candidates can no longer control their message if they slip in an unguarded moment.

In the world of the blogosphere, companies can no longer count on a press release alone to reach their audience.

In the age of Digg and Yelp, Everyman becomes the taste maker, the reviewer, the critic rather than the traditional media.

It seems to me the solution is to identify one's core (most authentic) values, then work everyday to manifest those values. Only through consistent and diligent effort, can we build and protect our reputation.

I am reminded of the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, who said:

"What you are thunders so that I cannot hear what you say to the contrary."