Poor Bush leadership continues to amaze

Today's local paper, the Santa Rosa Press Democrat ran a column by Thomas Friedman titled, Mr. Bush, Lead or Leave which criticizes the Bush administration for their poor leadership in dealing with the energy crisis.

He makes the point that Bush policy isn't doing anything to promote long-term solutions. In fact, his policies are making the situation worse. Imagine that! The Bush administration making our lives worse!

The opening of the column follows:

Two years ago, President Bush declared that America was “addicted to oil,” and, by gosh, he was going to do something about it. Well, now he has. Now we have the new Bush energy plan: “Get more addicted to oil.”

Actually, it’s more sophisticated than that: Get Saudi Arabia, our chief oil pusher, to up our dosage for a little while and bring down the oil price just enough so the renewable energy alternatives can’t totally take off. Then try to strong arm Congress into lifting the ban on drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

It’s as if our addict-in-chief is saying to us: “C’mon guys, you know you want a little more of the good stuff. One more hit, baby. Just one more toke on the ole oil pipe. I promise, next year, we’ll all go straight. I’ll even put a wind turbine on my presidential library. But for now, give me one more pop from that drill, please, baby. Just one more transfusion of that sweet offshore crude.”

It is hard for me to find the words to express what a massive, fraudulent, pathetic excuse for an energy policy this is.

To read the full column, go here.

I could not agree more. How is that this man has not been thrown out of office?

What happened to the "inevitability" of the Clinton nomination?

This column by E. J. Dionne Jr. of the Washington Post raises the question - Why is Hillary trailing Obama when her nomination looked "inevitable" just 3 months ago?

What happened to Hillary Clinton?

Last fall, she was the "inevitable" nominee whose "machine" would raise scads of cash and push her to an early victory. She demonstrated poise and knowledge in debates, and party leaders lined up behind her, fearful of missing her fast-moving train.

But this narrative was flawed from the beginning. Her campaign has suffered from profound organizational failures, small mistakes that took on larger import and miscalculations that have put her in a position where to survive, she must defeat Barack Obama in both Texas and Ohio next month.

The major flaw in the early story line is that there never was a Clinton machine in the sense of a well-populated organization skilled at turning out votes ...

Obama, by contrast, was shaped by his early work as an organizer for the Industrial Areas Foundation and his political life in Chicago, a place where people still talk about ward committeemen and harbor memories of something that was called "The Organization" ...

Her larger problem, which she must solve if she is to best Obama in the March 4 primaries, is reflected in her struggle to find a message, a purpose and a voice suited to the disoriented mood in American politics bred by the frustration of the later Bush years.

Obama is inspirational, of course, but in a particular way: His message has been constant since his boffo Nov. 10 speech at an Iowa Democratic dinner. He is less specific about policies than he is in describing the frustrations voters feel -- with Bush, with Washington, with divisiveness, with partisanship. His consistent promise is not to pass a detailed program but to change the mood and style of politics.

Clinton has offered experience and some well-thought-out policies. That might be enough in a different year. But when it comes to a larger theme, her campaign has been all over the lot.

This one of the reasons that I have continued to support Obama, though I think Hillary would make a fine president.

This election is about something larger than just policy. This election is about leadership and inspiration. If you are anything like me, you feel disappointments, frustration and anger with the absolute lack of leadership and vision and accountability coming from the Bush administration.

Bush has never asked the American people to sacrifice anything to enjoy greater security from terrorism or to support the war in Iraq. He has never offered a vision of what America should be doing. He has squandered the good will that we as a nation enjoyed after Sept. 11. If you think his approval numbers are bad in the US (high 20s - low 30s), listen to the words of Jonathan Rauch, currently a senior writer and columnist for the National Journal, a correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, and a writer-in-residence at the Brookings Institution , Rauch is also the author of five books. Here's what he has to say about the legacy of the Bush administration:

International opprobrium. The Iraq adventure fueled a precipitous decline in America’s image abroad, and Bush’s pugnacious style during his first term and his tin ear for foreign opinion made a bad situation worse. This is more than just a public-relations problem. National prestige is diplomatic capital; the more unpopular America becomes, the higher the price of foreign support. Mark Malloch Brown, the UN’s deputy secretary-general, recently said that suspicion of the United States has grown to the point where “many otherwise quite moderate countries” are inclined to oppose anything we favor.

Hence, any new president will need to repair the damage done by the Bush administration. This will take empathy, diplomatic skills, superb listening skills, and the ability to form cooalitions. Obama has these in abundance.

In addition, the next president must repair seriously damaged relations with Arab nations who see Bush as aggressive and arrogant.

As Lawrence Lessig (a great thinker and compelling speaker) points out in this video from a previous post, who is better equipped to do this than a dark skinned man named Barack Obama?

The next president must also inspire the American people to get off their collective lazy butts and take part in making this the greatest country in the world again. We need to invest in infrastructure (roads, bridges, fiber optics, etc), education and health care. These are not on the table for John McCain who has staked his presidency on a possible 100 year presence in Iraq. Apparently, McCain and the Republicans have so little cash as to invest in pollsters. Otherwise, they would be getting the message that most Americans think the war in Iraq was a big mistake.

------------------
BTW, while researching this post, I came across this blog by Oliver Willis, which he subtitles "Like Kryptonite To Stupid." It's worth reading.

Copycat Campaigning

This cartoon from Walt Handelsman of Newsday made me laugh.

Obama Vs. Hillary

Cartoonist Paul Combs says it all ...

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.

3 Reasons to Vote for Obama from Lawrence Lessig

This video from Lawrence Lessig lists 3 important reasons why he supports the candidacy of Barack Obama. Lessig's presentations are always thoughtful, well-reasoned and articulate.



He states: "He represents the very best of who we are ... character, integrity, ideals ... as someone who opposed the war from the start."

Vote for Barack Obama in 2008!

Vote Obama Unless You Want John McCain in the White House

3 columns in today’s newspaper have crystallized a thought that has been forming in my mind for some time: If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate for President, John McCain (“who almost promises a war with Iran”) and the Republicans may win the presidency again in 2008.

10 Key facts to consider:
1. Romney has quit the race, making McCain the de facto Republican candidate.
2. Contributors are voting with their wallets for Obama:

a. Obama’s campaign raised $32 million in January, $3 million on Wednesday (the day after the Super Tuesday) and $7 million total since Super Tuesday.
b. Clinton’s campaign only raised $4 million since Super Tuesday.
c. Clinton has loaned her campaign $5 million.
d. Clinton staffers are voluntarily forgoing paychecks.

3. Clinton is seen as “the most polarizing person in contemporary politics.” (George F. Will – see below, Stanley Fish, NY Times)
4. Obama has greater appeal than Clinton to independent voters.
5. California voters could play a critical role again in November.
6. Obama only lost in California by almost 390,000 votes, he surely ran much closer in the votes cast on Tuesday, after Clinton’s double-digit lead in polls had evaporated.
7. How many votes already cast in California for John Edwards would have gone to Obama?
8. Party identification is weak in California. Democrats are losing ground with registered voters.
9. The rapidly growing ranks of independent voters hold the balance of political power in California.
10. A poll of likely California voters found that McCain was virtually tied with Clinton in a hypothetical match up while Obama held a seven-point lead over McCain.

Key points from all three columns:
1) “Division Problems” By E. J. Dionne Jr.

John McCain is now the clear Republican front-runner, but … has survived only because conservative opponents have fractured their movement.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama fought to a near draw (and the) primaries revealed a sharp gender gap; a generation gap at least as deep as the age divide that was so widely advertised in the 1960s; and differences across ethnicity, race and class.

... Obama is the overwhelming favorite of voters under 30, and has inspired a disciplined army of youthful organizers who helped him win decisive victories in caucuses in Colorado, Kansas, Idaho, Minnesota, North Dakota and Alaska. If Clinton is the nominee, how many of these young voters will walk away from a process that thwarted their hopes?

Does Clinton’s weakness among male Democrats -- she lost men by 20 points in Delaware, 21 points in Connecticut and 39 points in Georgia -- portend problems in a general election?

----------------------------------------------------------

2) "Democrats Living Dangerously: Early Voting Insanity And a GOP Gift"
By George F. Will, Washington Post
Thursday, February 7, 2008; Page A21

Forewarned, Democrats now are forearmed -- not that they will necessarily make sensible use of the gift. Tuesday's voting armed Democratic voters with the name of the candidate that their nominee will face in the fall. Will their purblind party now nominate the most polarizing person in contemporary politics (Clinton), knowing that Republicans will nominate the person who tries to compensate for his weakness among conservatives with his strength among independent voters who are crucial to winning the White House? Perhaps.

The Republican Party's not-so-secret weapon always is the Democratic Party, with its entertaining thirst for living dangerously.
...
The surest way to unify the Republican Party, however, is for Democrats to nominate Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama, the foundation of whose candidacy is his early opposition to the war in Iraq, would be a more interesting contrast to the candidate who is trying to become the oldest person ever elected to a first presidential term and who almost promises a war with Iran ("There is only one thing worse than military action, and that is a nuclear-armed Iran").

--------------------------------------------------

3) "California may have a voice in November"
By Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee
Wednesday,February 6, 2008

California's decades-long isolation from national politics ended Tuesday as voters turned out heavily to vote in two close contests for presidential nominations – and they could play a critical role again in November.

The political media have made much of the state's non-involvement in choosing presidential candidates for the last several decades, thanks to its traditionally late primary elections, but California also has been taken for granted in the November duels.
...
Party identification is weak in California, and both parties have been losing ground in voter registration – especially the Democrats – and the rapidly growing ranks of independent voters hold the balance of political power. Independents – liberal on social issues, generally, but conservative on taxes and crime – have favored the most centrist, or the least ideologically rigid, candidates.

Independents have leaned Democratic in most recent high-profile elections but the election and re-election of Arnold Schwarzenegger indicate that they're willing to vote for a moderate GOP candidate. And McCain fits that description, a Republican who, like Schwarzenegger, is often castigated by the GOP right for deviating from ideological dogma – on immigration most notably. A poll of likely California voters by Field Research found that McCain was virtually tied with Clinton in a hypothetical matchup while Obama, thanks largely to his broader appeal, held a seven-point lead over McCain.

--------------------------------------------------

Vote for Obama in 2008 - Our best hope for the future
Please forward this link to people you know in these key states: Texas, Ohio, Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, Washington, Maryland, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Hawaii

Yes, we can.

Yes, we can.



Vote for Barack Obama.

Excellent blog post on presentation from Jake McKee

Jake McKee is the Principal at Ant's Eye View, a Dallas-based customer collaborations strategy practice.

Clearly, this post on his blog belies the comment, “I’m just a n00b at all of this public speaking stuff.” He offers up some sophisticated tips which are very useful to the average business presenter.

His brainstorming and content creation process is quite ingenious:

Typically my presentations, whether client research findings or conference keynote, start on the white board. I start free forming a running list of ideas, thoughts, points, and issues that may be relevant. This includes everything from major points to minor factoids.

Once I come across a point that I see as “significant”, I write it down on an index card and lay it on the floor. (I may also thumb through an old stack of cards from an previous session) Pretty soon there’s a bunch of cards laid out on the floor. I take a first pass at culling them down a bit, putting them in some sort of order, and identifying anything that might be missing. I’m a very visual person, so seeing this all laid out in front of me really helps.

This idea of whiteboarding, then culling the broader points to index cards is outstanding. Too often, speakers think of their presentation as text and words. This method is a more visual, right-brained, big picture method that is likely to lead to a better organized and well-thought-out structure. It's a very effective and creative way to get started.

Jake goes on to add a great suggestion about time:

No audience likes watching the presenter hurry through the last 15 slides in 2 minutes because they ran out of time. I tend to plan content for no more than 75% of the time allotted, although typically I plan for more like 50% of the time allotted.

Throughout the planning process, I’ll develop for that 50% target (i.e. 30 minutes of content for a 1 hour time slot). This helps me to ensure that I’m focusing on the truly important issues, but it also makes it easy to deal with the “oh yeah!” content that pops in during the rest of the development.

He is SO right about ideas coming up later in the process and adding that extra 25%.

I concur completely with Jake's point about clothing: “one step above the audience.” I want to be the best-dressed person in the room but only by a little bit.

He says:

I always try to ensure I’m presenting wearing my wildly comfortable Nike AirMax 360 sneakers.

If you can get away with sneakers, more power to you. I wear either Ecco, Rockport, Cole Haan Air Nike brand dress shoes because they are as comfortable as running shoes but very stylish and acceptable in ANY environment, right up to the boardroom.

He also has some great tips on visual media - images, PowerPoint / Keynote, etc.

Terrific post, Jake!

Clinton's Strategy Backfires

A colleague emailed me a link in reply to my blog post on Barack Obama's concession speech from New Hampshire.

The link led me to Peggy Noonan's piece "Declarations" in the Wall Street Journal online.

I once thought highly of Bill Clinton. I think he made a huge mistake in lying to the American people about having sex with Monica Lewinski. His appeal has waned even further in the last couple of weeks. I found the following excerpt rang true for me.

In Dillon, S.C., according to the Associated Press, on Thursday Mr. Clinton "predicted that many voters will be guided mainly by gender and race loyalties" and suggested his wife may lose Saturday's primary because black voters will side with Mr. Obama. Who is raising race as an issue? Bill Clinton knows. It's the press, and Mr. Obama. "Shame on you," Mr. Clinton said to a CNN reporter. The same day the Web site believed to be the backdoor of the Clinton war room unveiled a new name for the senator from Illinois: "Sticky Fingers Obama."

Bill Clinton, with his trembly, red-faced rage, makes John McCain look young. His divisive and destructive daily comportment—this is a former president of the United States—is a civic embarrassment. It is also an education, and there is something heartening in this.

There are many serious and thoughtful liberals and Democrats who support Mr. Obama and John Edwards, and who are seeing Mr. Clinton in a new way and saying so. Here is William Greider in The Nation, the venerable left-liberal magazine. The Clintons are "high minded" on the surface but "smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard at the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four years."

That, again, is from one of the premier liberal journals in the United States. It is exactly what conservatives have been saying for a decade. This may mark a certain coming together of the thoughtful on both sides. The Clintons, uniters at last.

I am reminded of a comment made by David Geffen of Dreamworks SKG (G = Geffen) who is currently supporting Barack Obama for President and raised $1.3 million for his campaign. On February 21, 2007, in an interview with Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, Geffen described Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton in unflattering terms: "Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling." He said that Hillary Clinton was "incredibly polarizing" and described Bill Clinton as "reckless" and cast doubt on those who say he has become a different person since leaving office.

When I heard this story, I found it a disturbing reminder that Bill Clinton has a thorny relationship with the truth.

Bill's credibility has become an issue in Hillary's Campaign. I suspect her campaign sees this as a NIGHTMARE - it is the last thing they want people talking about. This speaks once again to the importance of authenticity and credibility in communication.