SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: geode00 who wrote (122925)1/5/2008 8:43:13 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362769
 
Obama -- a Personal Take

huffingtonpost.com

By Ben Rosen*

Posted January 5, 2008 | 07:08 PM (EST)

They're in New Hampshire now. Fitting, from a personal viewpoint, because that's where the whole Barack Obama thing started for me. Not with the inspiring speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, but in New Hampshire, a year ago.

Donna and I were catching the news one evening last winter, well before anyone had declared for the presidency. During the course of the broadcast, we both had an epiphany. Or at least a political epiphany.

We saw this confident young man addressing a group of people on a snowy night. The man, Barack Obama, was black. The group he was speaking to was all white, very large, and wildly enthusiastic.

I said to Donna, "There's something going on here. I don't think I've ever seen anything else like it, and I can remember some charismatic politicians in my time." Among them are FDR (yes, I'm that old), JFK, Adlai Stevenson (a two-time loser, but a charismatic speaker), and Colin Powell (whom I witnessed having CEOs and factory workers eat out of his hands; but then he declined the call).

The "something" that was going on in New Hampshire in early 2007 had nothing to do with his policy on this issue or that, or his votes in the Senate, or anything as specific as that. Rather, the "something going on," at least in our view, was that this could be a candidate who could unify this unbelievably polarized country (just as I thought that Colin Powell, a Republican, might have done).

Neither of us had ever been involved politically at the national level, but there's always a first time. (Well, when I was 19 and at college, I campaigned for Adlai, but that hardly counts.) We then read Obama's books, we did some further research, and we soon got in touch with the Obama exploratory committee and said we'd like to raise money for him - even though he had not yet declared.

Out came our tin cup. We solicited friends, friends of friends, close relatives, distant relatives, casual acquaintances, and any warm bodies who would take our phone calls or keep our e-mails from going into their spam box.

We learned in the process that many of our friends were behind Hillary, that a lot were Republicans, some were Biden fans, a few supported Richardson, and a lot were simply unwilling to commit to anyone that early. We probably wore out some of our friendships during this exercise, but we were on a mission.

When all was said and done, the response turned out to be remarkable. We were floored by how many people from how many different camps sent in their $2,300-per-person checks. By the end of the March quarter, the two of us had raised one-half percent of all the money that the Obama campaign had raised nationally.

Part of the carrot that we used was to promise them an intimate meeting with the senator at our apartment. On the evening of May 3, about 50-plus of them showed up on Central Park West for our "intimate" reception.

As it turned out, the event actually was reasonably intimate. The senator generously pressed the flesh with everyone either before or after his talk. He posed for pictures, he signed copies of his first book (Dreams from My Father - a wonderful insight into the person), and only the insistence of his handlers got him to finally leave.

One impression of of Obama that evening sticks in my mind. Observing him in action mingling with the crowd stands in contrast to my one meeting with a Clinton (Bill). Now both Obama and Clinton are masters at this game, but with one significant difference.

I've met only one Clinton (Bill), and just once. But I spent four hours in a Metropolitan Opera box with him (and six others) in early 2001, just after he had left office. There was, of course, a lot of chitchat before, during and after the performance (Aida).

And herein is the difference. At the opera, Bill ("the smartest person in any group") lectured. At our fund-raiser, Barack (no intellectual slouch himself) listened. In his campaign, Barack says the election is not about me, it's about you. I believe him.

On January 8, the New Hampshire voters will cast their ballots. Forty-five percent are registered independent. In Iowa, Obama dominated the independent vote. So even though the chart of the polls compiled by Real Clear Politics shows a tight race between Obama and Hillary, the trend is definitely toward Obama, before and after Iowa.

But the chart above shows the average of many polls, some of them not yet reflecting the Iowa results. The most recent poll, from American Research Group, has data through today (Jan. 5), and shows Obama with a 12-point lead over Clinton and 18-point lead over Edwards -- significant changes just in the last few days.

My favorite observation on the Iowa results comes from former Bill Clinton campaign staffer Paul Begala, who appeared last night on Charlie Rose. Begala quoted some Democratic operative as saying that Hillary's loss may have been a blessing in disguise. As Begala reminded us, Churchill had this rejoinder when his wife Clementine proffered that phrase after his defeat in 1945: "It may well be a blessing in disguise. At the moment, it seems quite effectively disguised."

On to New Hampshire. A year later.
_____________________________________

*Benjamin M. Rosen was originally an electrical engineer, later a securities analyst, later a venture capitalist, former chairman of Caltech, former chairman of Compaq Computer, board member of Caltech, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York Philharmonic, Columbia Business School and NYC Global Partners. He also blogs at benrosen.com.



To: geode00 who wrote (122925)1/6/2008 12:45:18 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 362769
 
A Dynasty Isn’t a Democracy
_______________________________________________________________

Another Bhutto for Pakistan doesn’t bode well for democracy; would another Clinton for the U.S.?

by Rosa Brooks

Published on Thursday, January 3, 2008 by the Los Angeles Times
_______________________________________________________________

As the U.S. election season shifts creakily into higher gear, our leaders are enthusiastically lionizing slain Pakistani politician Benazir Bhutto. The former prime minister “returned to Pakistan to fight for democracy,” noted Hillary Clinton. “The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a tragic event … for democracy,” mourned Rudy Giuliani. Meanwhile, President Bush urged Pakistanis “to honor Benazir Bhutto’s memory by continuing with the democratic process for which she so bravely gave her life.”

Hold on! Bhutto was a courageous and compelling figure, but hardly a martyr to democracy. The daughter of a prime minister, Bhutto took over the leadership of the Pakistan People’s Party from her mother, who herself inherited party leadership from Bhutto’s father. Bhutto’s own two terms as Pakistan’s prime minister were marred by corruption scandals and allegations of involvement in still darker activities, including the 1996 murder of her own brother, a party rival.

Her policies didn’t always further democracy either. Bhutto actively supported the Taliban’s military takeover of Afghanistan, for instance. She was willing to help empower the most extremist and repressive Islamic organization the world has so far seen in exchange for the imagined strategic advantage an entrenched Taliban government in Afghanistan would give Pakistan in its unending power struggle with India.

After disgrace and exile, Bhutto returned to Pakistan in the fall of 2007 on a self-styled mission to rescue Pakistan from chaos, and she loudly demanded the restoration of democracy. Pakistan could use some genuine democracy — but Bhutto, an eternally polarizing figure, was hardly the woman to usher in a new era of democratic stability, regardless of the Bush administration’s hopes.

Bhutto’s tragic death itself underlines the limits of her commitment to democracy. In her will, she named her 19-year-old son, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, as her successor as chair of the Pakistan People’s Party, appointing her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, as co-chair and quasi-regent until Bilawal comes of age. To Bhutto, political power was something one could inherit, something to be passed along from spouse to spouse and from parent to child, like grandmother’s pearls or grandfather’s favorite chair — or like the infamous Swiss bank accounts that led to corruption charges against her in several countries.

And who knows? Maybe Bilawal’s not such a bad choice for the Pakistan People’s Party. A history student at Oxford, he already has a constituency — at least on Facebook, where someone has established a new fan group called “Let’s not assassinate Bilawal Bhutto because he’s hot, OK?” Bilawal’s own Facebook profile is fairly modest: “I am not a politician or a great thinker. I’m merely a student. I do the things that students do like make mistakes, eat junk food … but most importantly of all … learn.” Still, “My time to lead will come.”

What’s weirdest about all this is that not very many people here in the U.S. seem to have noticed that this is all pretty weird. A champion of democracy passes along political leadership in her will, leaving it to her husband and son? That’s dynastic politics, not democratic politics.

Kings and queens pass along their political positions to their children. Paragons of democracy do not. But you won’t find even a hint of this in the reactions of the leading presidential contenders from either party, or from the White House, or from most leading U.S. media commentators.

There is, of course, an obvious and depressing explanation for why so few people in the U.S. seem to have registered this as jarring: We’re perilously close to becoming a dynastic state ourselves. Our current president, George W. Bush, is the son of our former president, George H.W. Bush. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is struggling today to hold on to her position as Democratic Party front-runner, is married to former President Clinton.

You can’t blame the heirs of political dynasties for their fortunes. Nineteen-year-old Bilawal is a pawn in a deadly game; so far, he hasn’t had much control over his life. Benazir Bhutto didn’t have much either: In September, she wrote, rather poignantly, “I didn’t choose this life. It chose me.” Similarly, George W. Bush didn’t choose his father, and it’s not Hillary Clinton’s fault that the young law professor she married later became president.

All the same, there’s something awfully creepy about the dynastic trend in American politics. If Hillary Clinton is elected president in 2008, by 2012 the U.S. presidency will have been controlled for 24 years by only two families. More families have divvied up the political spoils in Pakistan in the last 24 years.

The U.S. isn’t Pakistan, thank goodness. But as voters in Iowa’s caucuses kick off the 2008 presidential season, we’d do well to think about what makes the U.S. and Pakistan different — and about what values we Americans need to nurture if we’re going to remain a true democracy and not sink into our own brand of corrupt dynastic politics.

Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times