PeterGlenshaw.com

On Bonuses

For all of the sturm and drang over the AIG bonuses, it's important to peel back a layer of indignation and ask the following question:

How many of us are reacting (and maybe over-reacting) to the bonus scandal at AIG because we don't really understand (and maybe don't want to understand) the magnitude of the credit-default swap and derivative scandal at AIG?

Everyone understand a bonus.  You work.  You earn a wage or a salary.  And then someone pays you more, supposedly based on outstanding performance of either yourself or the firm.

But derivatives?  Credit-default swaps?  Huh? 

No matter that the so-called sin of bonuses at AIG ($160+M) compared to AIG's other sins in credit-default swaps and derivatives (as judged by the US government bailout of $80B) is on the order of at least 1:2,000. 

Put more simply, for $1 in bonus money sent to AIG which we now protest, another $2,000 has gone to the firm for its risk business practices in credit-default swaps and derivatives. 

The bottom line is, we understand bonuses, even if they represent some 0.20% of the federal monies committed to AIG.  All of this anger about bonuses at AIG involves less than 1% of the total money committed by the federal government to AIG.  Weird, right?

Wrong.  Most Americans don't receive a bonus in their paycheck.  They earn an hourly wage or a yearly salary, and they're glad to get it. 

And for years, we've heard about CEOs and other corporate leaders earning performance-related pay packages in the tens of millions of dollars, while more than half of us have earned barely stayed afloat or earned less than we did ten years ago. 

Now comes the recession, and while we're not expecting corporate leaders to earn a lot less, the notion of bonuses seems particularly unfathomable. 

So, there is both logic and ill-logic in our reaction to the AIG bonuses.  If we are really concerned about malfeasance, we ought to focus on the illegitimate business practices of the AIG hedge fund that committed to insure the un-insurable.  The bonuses paid by AIG are wrong, but they frankly pale in comparison to the real crime committed by this financial giant.

So, where do we go from here?

First, I think we need to commit ourselves to real and significant wage and salary growth for the "bottom" 60-80% of American households in the next ten years in terms of income.  This is the group which has lost or barely kept afloat during the Bush years.  Obama's focus on health care is critical to achieving this goal.  Far too many corporate and other organizational dollars have gone towards meeting health care of employees needs than wage needs in the last 20 years because of incredible inefficiencies in our health care system.  Once we have a more effective system, employers will be able to (and should) direct compensation dollars away from benefits like health care and more towards wages and salaries.  

Second, we need to maintain the middle-class tax cut introduced by the Obama administration.  The mal-distribution of societal responsibility introduced by the Bush administration must end.  A return to Clinton-era tax rates, which is what Obama proposes, for the most wealthy and privileged in American society is the first step towards ensuring opportunity for all. 

Finally, we must re-regulate our financial houses.  Faithful readers of this blog know I endorsed Senator Chris Dodd in the New Hampshire primary, and did not endorse then-Senator Obama until Senator Dodd withdrew after the Iowa caucuses.  Months later, when Senator Dodd had a chance to return to the Granite State in the summer of 2008, I asked him about the pending financial crisis, and whether he thought modification of the Financial Services Modernization Act or the Commodities Modernization Act was necessary. 

To my great disappoint, Senator Dodd demurred.  He did not think it was necessary to separate the Wall Street functions of banking from its Main Street functions.  By blending the two operations, we could compete in a global economy, he said.

I like and appreciate and think highly of Senator Dodd, but I'm afraid he and far too many Republicans and Democrats simply missed the disastrous implications of these bills (for the record, the Financial Services Modernization Act was passed under the Clinton administration, and the Commodities Modernization Act passed under President George W. Bush). 

The bottom line is that conservative, prudent, and proven financial strategies for asset management, banking, and insurance were tossed aside once senior executives were compensated by the quarterly growth of their company's stock. 

Bonus-stalking and inflated quarterly earnings became the lifeblood of firms and their leaders. Instead of serving as cherry atop a well-earned dessert, bonuses swelled to such proportions that leadership in financial institutions swayed to whatever short-term methods would allow them to earn these lucrative "rewards."  The cherry became the dessert, and what followed was a complete upheaval of our financial system.  For all of our outrage over the recent round of bonuses paid by AIG, we ignore the years and years in which Wall Street leaders (and many corporate leader far from Wall Street) paid themselves handsomely for profits that we now understand were fiction.

What saddens me most in these turbulent times lies with the failure to learn from organizations that do understand how to lend to the most risky set of customers.  Consider the New Hampshire Community Loan Fund, which has made over $100M worth of loans since 1984 to the riskiest of borrowers. It's been in the subprime finance and housing market for its entire career.  Its default rate?  In over 25 years, the historical average has been less than 1%.  If nothing else, their track record shows its very realistic to lend money to these markets without bringing undue risk to investors. 

It's easy to get frothy about the AIG bonus situation, but doing so avoids the hard work ahead that will reset our economic and financial priorities.  If a small non-profit in New Hampshire can safely invest in sub-prime borrowers for 25 years and do better than Wall Street, surely its possible for that lesson to be shared with other financial firms.  If there is a bonus to be found in this economic melt-down, it's that prudent financial practices can in fact enable a 21st century middle-class to re-emerge in the United States.

Judd Gregg & the dead Republican Party

The news tonight that New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg has withdrawn as President Obama’s choice for Commerce Secretary comes as no surprise to those of us in the trenches of New Hampshire politics who confront the reality of a dying Republican Party on a daily basis.

Whatever the Republican Party might have been in northern New England 20 or 30 years ago -- moderate in tone, fiscally conservative, socially liberal -- there appear only two national figures today from this region who still represent those positions:  Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

My experience is that far too many Republicans in both New England and throughout the country have been captured by the take no-prisoners mentally led by a troika of Republican ideologues and operatives: most notably, Lee Atwater, Newt Gingrich, and Karl Rove.

Consider Judd Gregg.  He was once a radical fiscal conservative who, as the Granite State governor in the early 1990s, railed against the expansive and expensive ways of the University of New Hampshire during a similar economic downturn.  In that light, Gregg’s silence on fiscal matters was telling during two terms of the Bush administration that saw an expanding federal deficit, fueled by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the favor-the-rich tax cuts.  For a guy who publicly preached Republican values of small government and reduced taxation, Gregg nevertheless felt compelled to support the Bush agenda for eight long years with silence.

Why?

Because that was the game in DC, and Gregg decided he would rather play under the new rules than stand for principle. 

Under the Obama administration, however, the rules today for the Republicans appear far different.  Principles like fiscal responsibility are suddenly in vogue for Republicans.  We’re seeing it here in New Hampshire from John Sununu, Sr. who, like Gregg, remained silent during eight years of federal expansion and fiscal largesse under the Bush administration, but who has come roaring back into the political spotlight in 2009 to complain about Democratic spending both in the Granite State and nationally. 

The irony is that even a few weeks ago, Gregg was prepared to abandon even these principles.  A far greater political principle – personal advancement – was to be considered.  Gregg offered his name to the Obama administration for Commerce Secretary, knowing full well that Obama was a Democratic and he a Republican.  Asked if he could willingly support the President’s agenda, Gregg claimed he could do so in this time of national crisis. 

That was then.  With Republicans closing ranks (except for Collins & Snowe) against the stimulus, Gregg faced a squeeze play.  Would he abandon the Republican party for the principle of national unity, or would he return to the warm embrace of a political party at the expense of national unity?

For the last two years in Lyme, NH, I’ve worked closely with elected officials whose political and party affiliations are far more conservative than my own on matters related to school funding (I’m the chair of the school board here).  As you might expect in a town of less than 2,000 people, our exchanges have been cordial and pleasant.  We’ve worked cooperatively and spoken kindly to one another.  And yet, despite all of the polite talk and attempts to explain the basis upon which our decisions are made, and despite our ability to deliver budgets dramatically lower than previous years, I find these same conservative officials voting against any and all of our budgets in meeting after meeting.

At one point this year, a few of these conservative town officials even voted to fund our school library with a grand total of $1.00.  Although their motion ultimately failed, it nevertheless attracted three votes, all of them from nice, seemingly reasonable conservative elected officials.

So much for bi-partisanship.

The bottom line is that Republican Party is largely dead – not in terms of activists or money, though both are waning.  Instead its values and principles have died, and in the interests of expediency or desire to acquire or retain power, Republican values have withered on the vine.

In this regard, Judd Gregg had a wake up call this week.  Would he trade political advancement for values?  Could he find a way to compromise with those whose political philosophy differs from his own values?  In the end, Gregg did neither.  Like far too many Republicans today, Gregg decided to falsely embrace principles he had long abandoned because there wasn’t sufficient political cover to explain his actions.  At the same time, Gregg and far too many Republicans at the national, state, and local level have willingly forgotten how to compromise or work with officials with different political viewpoints.  They talk bi-partisanship, but can’t walk a mile in the shoes of a Democrat.

That’s a sure sign of a dead political party.  Ultimately, the renaissance of the Democratic Party came because a Vermonter named Howard Dean declared in 2003, at the height of the Bush presidency, that he came to represent “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.”  The irony was, Dean as Governor of Vermont had worked closely with Vermont Republicans and often angered his own party with his moderate views.  At the same time, Dean passed health care and civil rights legislation that was ten years ahead of the rest of the country.  If only the Republicans could find someone like Howard Dean -- who could comprise without abandoning principle -- they might have a chance at legitimacy in 2009.

The Bus (or, Behavior in the Obama Era)

In light of the breakdown of Tom Daschle's nomination, and others like it (all of which is brilliantly captured in Steve Pearlstein's column tomorrow in the Washington Post), the conversation I had last week with a local CEO rings incredibly clear and revealing.

This CEO -- who runs a very public enterprise in the Upper Valley with some 150+ employees, who applies the label of "conservative" to political and economic views -- described the mode in which this she or he travels to a very high-powered, regular meeting in New England with some of its best known business leaders.

(If you can't tell, I'm working hard to protect the identity of this CEO.  No pronouns!)

"I take the bus."

Not a limo.  Not a car with a driver.  Not an airplane (even thought the meeting is more than 120 miles from the hometown of this CEO).

"I take the bus."

Why?

"I take the bus because I can get work done, because it's inexpensive, and drops me off very near my hotel and location for the meeting."

For the other CEOs in this highfalutin group, such behavior was unbelievable.  Take the bus?  My oh my!

In fact, this Upper Valley CEO got a lot of grief from the other New England CEOs for taking the bus.  One CEO in this highfalutin group took a helicopter to the meeting.  Many of the others arrive by chauffeured car or limousine.

But bus?

No way.  Not for these guys and gals.

Maybe, however, the tide has turned. 

In light of Tom Daschle's error of hypocrisy  -- who used to boast of his driving a mid-1970s Pontiac more than 200,000 miles, who used to say he wasn't one of those politicans in the limousine class, who did not used to wear red horned-rimmed glasses -- maybe the problem lies in the fact that far too many senior leaders in America (whether it be in politics, business, or other sectors) believe 1) they're entitled to different rules, and 2) favorable treatment comes with the job description of these high-and-mighty jobs.

News flash: Those days are over.  It's a brown bag world, even for the Masters of the Universe.  

For too long, the CEO mindset has swayed both the shareholders and boards of leading corporations and other organizations in this nation.  President Obama has set a high standard, and found some of the most loyal and capable (especially in the case of Daschle) people in his administration to be wanting. 

So be it. 

It's high time we applied a simple principle: to whom much is given, much is expected. 

I applaud this Upper Valley CEO and hope other leaders will do the same:  get on the bus.

Bush's Last Day (and Mine)

If you’re a Democratic activist, tomorrow marks the last day when George W. Bush can be President of the United States of America.  It’s a day for celebration.  It’s a day for joy.  Not only is Bush gone, but the best possible man on the planet to replace him, Barack Obama of Chicago, Illinois, will be sworn into the nation’s highest office at noon tomorrow. 

For eight long years, we on the patriotic Democratic wing of the Democratic Party have worked hard to end the reign of George the II, and restore Democratic principles and priorities to the nation.  Thanks to people like Governor Howard Dean of Vermont, we got a chance to articulate our principles and, in his role as DNC Chair, implement tactics (like the 50-state strategy) that brought the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to power in 2008.

So, in this apparent moment of glory and celebration, why I am a bit misty-eyed?

The answer is simple, sudden, and expected.  It came Sunday afternoon, late in the day, after the snow had fallen, after the J3 Ford Sayre racers had bombed down the slalom course at Whaleback Mountain, and were preparing to leaving for a five-hour trip north – way north – that same day for a two-day Super-G training camp and race at SugarLoaf Mountain in Maine.

My daughter, Hannah, all of 13-and-a-half years, was ready to board a rented van alongside nine other ski racers, all similarly bedecked in snow/ski/racing/cool gear.  Like most families in this cohort, our day began at 6am with yet another early morning weekend wakeup call.  Some 11 hours later, both parents and their offspring gathered in the parking lot of a local establishment to make the final preparations for the trip.  Amidst the frantic talk and nervous chatter, I could see the eyes of parents widen and their throats tighten.  It was late.  They would be driving for some 250+ miles, way north, on a night when the snow continued to fall, when the visibility wasn’t great, when the easiest thing in the world would be to have your teenager at home.

But that’s not where I was, and that’s not where these other parents were.  Maybe, unexpectedly, this was our last night to be truly and solely parents.  Maybe on this night we realized an uncomfortable truth:  that from hereon, parenting was out of our direct control.  As the van drove away, as I counted the hours until I thought Hannah might actually be near her destination, I realized that what I missed, in addition to my daughter, was control.

When she was 10 or 8 or 6 or even younger, I could manage and direct virtually everything in her life.  Now was different.  Now people who might seem like strangers to me – her skiing coach, his assistant, maybe even some of the kids with whom she was travelling – were intimate and important companions in her life. 

What?!!!!!

You can’t possibly be serious, I thought to myself.  Let my precious little girl alone with these people, for this long, with only a modicum of rules and boundaries and control.

It can’t be happening.

Only it is, and it must.  To grow at this age, I realized – later, much later, around 3am, as I awoke and wondered around my house in a fitful burst of energy – requires extension beyond parents, beyond the home.

It means having to pee in the snow bank alongside your friends.  It happened with Hannah on this trip.  Would I permit it?  No, of course not, but that’s the point.

It means having a really tough crash on the snow course. It happened to Hannah on this trip.  Would I permit it?  No, of course not, but that’s the point.

And that’s just the news from Day One.  What will happen tomorrow?

I found myself today emailing my daughter with questions I swore I’d never ever ever ever ask in this situation.

1)    Did you get enough sleep?
2)    Did you get enough to eat?

Ohmigod, Dad, can you stop embarrassing me, like now?

No.  I can’t.  Last night was my final night as a parent, complete and toto.  Hereon, I am sharing you with the world.  I will never stop being your parent.  I will never stop loving you, Hannah (and your brothers, Jacob and Noah).  Regardless of what you do or say or think, my love for you is absolute.

But what is not absolute is my ability to control your life.  At some point, reluctantly and with a great deal of fear and worry, I must begin to let go.  It’s harder than I realized, even though plenty of wise people (like my own Mother) told me so.  I look back at pictures when you were in diapers and needed to be fed, and think those days seem so easy. 

Maybe so.  Maybe not.  Maybe raising children is hard work regardless of their age.  Whether they are 2 or 20 years old, children present challenges that arrive full-stop and unapologetic.  They offer the fullest and most complete way of defining yourself and life in general. 

So tomorrow comes, and by noon Barack Obama will be sworn-in as our 44th President.  I can’t wait.  He and his family, and his administration, will bring great things to our country, and demand great and wonderful service from us, its citizens.  In four years, I expect this nation will be in remarkable shape because of his leadership.

Tomorrow comes, and my daughter will come home.  As she grows, she will demand more from me than I am perhaps ready to give.  Within about four short years, she will be ready for college.  Tomorrow night, however, I will met her in a parking lot and bring her home, and maybe even get the chance to tuck her into bed.  It’s a night numbered.  It’s a night not forever. 

On this night, I’m not the only one with mixed emotions.

On Victory Speeches

Leadership includes many qualities -- such as vision, commitment, and an ability to understand an unfolding situation -- but communication perhaps carries the greatest role for anyone who seeks that responsibility.

Now, everyone knows President-Elect Barack Obama can deliver a great speech.  We also know he is a terrific writer, and consequently a terrific thinker, too.  Obama's facility with words, written and spoken, is a treasure to behold for anyone who enjoys language.

But over the past few years, it's been interesting to note that less attention has been paid to the kind of speech Obama makes in a particular situation.  All great speeches occur in the context of time and place. Sure, over time, that context fades and the words of a particular speech themselves remain, to be repeated in classrooms and read silently with a nod of admiration by future generations.  But in the beginning, on its initial delivery, the speech lives in the present.  And the greatness of a speech first is most often known in that moment.

During this great Presidential campaign, I'd argue that Barack Obama delivered seven great speeches.  Of these seven speeches, five speeches fairly and perhaps predictably fit the time in which they were given.  For instance, at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner speech in Iowa in November 2007, after a night of speeches that left him the last speaker near midnight, Obama separated himself from his chief rival, Senator Hillary Clinton, by saying "This party - the party of Jefferson and Jackson; of Roosevelt and Kennedy - has always made the biggest difference in the lives of the American people when we led, not by polls, but by principle; not by calculation, but by conviction; when we summoned the entire nation to a common purpose - a higher purpose."

Obama's victory speech after the Iowa caucuses in January 2008 came before a national and international audience, and its language soared as high as the enthusiasm of his supporters that night:  "They said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided; too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose. But on this January night - at this defining moment in history - you have done what the cynics said we couldn't do."

A few months later, Obama settled nerves surrounding his relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, but more importantly re-drew the boundaries of that controversy by reminding people of how race works in America in very complex ways, and how we must face its complexity together in order to continue to form this more perfect union.  It was perhaps the greatest speech given by Obama in the entire campaign, a speech of soaring intellect and subtle grasp, the kind whose brilliance becomes evident with every re-reading.  But in very practical terms, it also effectively ended the Wright controversy and restored ballast to Obama's campaign.

After he secured the Democratic nomination, Obama gave a quiet little speech on Father's Day that began by saying the usual things one might imagine on that day in a Chicago church.  "What makes you a man is not the ability to have a child," Obama said, "it's the courage to raise one." 

Maybe it was because Obama was finally home after a long primary campaign, speaking in a church with his family in front of him, that this speech -- while perfectly fitting its moment -- was also just a little bit different. 

By turns it was playful.

"You know, sometimes I'll go to an eighth-grade graduation and there's all that pomp and circumstance and gowns and flowers. And I think to myself, it's just eighth grade. To really compete, they need to graduate high school, and then they need to graduate college, and they probably need a graduate degree too. An eighth-grade education doesn't cut it today. Let's give them a handshake and tell them to get their butts back in the library!"

But it was also serious in an unusual way.  It was not simply somber about the inadequate ways that men all too often behave -- by not being present in the lives of their children, or by watching ESPN's Sports Center all weekend long -- but in reminding men that more ought to be expected of them than is asked. 

In this speech,, Obama asked men to pass along the value of empathy -- to show children how to see the world from someone else's perspective.  He asked them to give hope to their children, too.  Not in wishful spoonfuls, but as a dose of medicine to better their world instead of simply focusing on themselves.

"When I was a young man, I thought life was all about me – how do I make my way in the world, and how do I become successful and how do I get the things that I want. But now, my life revolves around my two little girls....And what I've realized is that life doesn't count for much unless you're willing to do your small part to leave our children – all of our children – a better world. Even if it's difficult. Even if the work seems great. Even if we don't get very far in our lifetime."

When was the last time you heard Dr. Phil talk like that?

Of course, the fifth great speech Obama gave that neatly fit its time was his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention.  Before 70,000 people on a summer night in a stadium a mile high in the sky, and before millions more people on television, Obama pointed to the grandstand and, like Babe Ruth, hit a home run.  

"This too is part of America's promise - the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan Horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values. And that's to be expected. Because if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.

You make a big election about small things."

(It was here -- with memories of Swift Boats and Willie Horton, and anticipated memories of Bill Ayers -- that Obama really got me.)

"And you know what - it's worked before. Because it feeds into the cynicism we all have about government. When Washington doesn't work, all its promises seem empty. If your hopes have been dashed again and again, then it's best to stop hoping, and settle for what you already know.

I get it. I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don't fit the typical pedigree, and I haven't spent my career in the halls of Washington.

But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the nay-sayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me. It's been about you."

Maybe so.  But on this night, and on four previous occasions, Obama delivered an extraordinary speech and did so at just the right moment.  He knew what to say, he knew when to say it.  The task seems easy, but it's not.

And what's even more extraordinary, as I look back on this extraordinary campaign, is that Obama delivered two additionally great speeches at what might seem to be precisely the wrong time.  The speeches I have in mind were polished.  They were tight, cool, and wonderful in their prose, argument, and delivery.  Problem was, they did not fit the time.  Speeches first exist in the moment, I believe, and these weren't it.

Or so it might seem. 

The first great, oddly-timed speech by Obama came on the night on the New Hampshire Primary.  On the heels of the victory in the Iowa caucuses, polls suggested in the final 24 hours before the New Hampshire that Obama would not only win, but win by some 8-11 points.  If true, it would effectively mean the end of the campaign for Hillary Clinton.  But something happened in that final 24 hours.  Depending on who you talk to, Hillary found her voice, falsely claimed via a mailer to every women in New Hampshire that Obama was weak on supporting choice, and ultimately  found herself in the victory corner on a cold night in New Hampshire.

To everyone in the Obama campaign, Clinton's victory was a sharp, stinging rebuke.  It was the kind of night where you reach for the hard stuff.

But not Obama.

On that night, when victory was snatched away by a very strong opponent, Obama responded by tacking directly into the wind.  Today, nearly a year later, I remain amazed at what Obama did on that cold, New Hampshire night.

In the face of defeat, he did not yell.  He did not scream.  He did not apologize. 

Instead, with the exception of one minor concession, Obama gave his victory speech.

"I want to congratulate Senator Clinton on a hard-fought victory here in New Hampshire.

A few weeks ago, no one imagined that we’d have accomplished what we did here tonight. For most of this campaign, we were far behind, and we always knew our climb would be steep.

But in record numbers, you came out and spoke up for change. And with your voices and your votes, you made it clear that at this moment – in this election – there is something happening in America."

Here, finally, was proof positive about what Barack Obama meant in terms of hope.  It was in the dark hours, when there was not much light or optimism, that hope could and should prevail.  

"We know the battle ahead will be long, but always remember that no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change.

We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics who will only grow louder and more dissonant in the weeks to come. We’ve been asked to pause for a reality check. We’ve been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope.

But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope. For when we have faced down impossible odds; when we’ve been told that we’re not ready, or that we shouldn’t try, or that we can’t, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people.

Yes we can.

It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation.

Yes we can.

It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail toward freedom through the darkest of nights.

Yes we can.

It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness.

Yes we can."

That speech -- given at a time when most candidates would bend -- instead gave birth to an Obama victory in South Carolina, a numerical Obama victory in Nevada, and then a string of victories after the Super Tuesday-tie that gave Obama a lead which he never relinquished until June when it became clear that the Democratic nomination was his to claim. 

That speech, given in the most unlikely of circumstances, also gave birth to a viral video thanks to will.i.am, that turned the tables on the New Hampshire victory of Hillary Clinton.  Instead of defeat, suddenly and indescribably, there was hope.  Possibility.  A chance for a chance. 

Yes We Can. 

In many ways, it was the most unlikely victory speech, but perhaps the most effective speech of the entire Obama campaign.

Finally, I'd suggest (quietly) amidst all of these speeches, that Obama's speech on Election Night 2008 was also unusual in its timing.  Instead of tinkling the triumphant keys, instead of relishing in the victory of a particular political party, and frankly instead of playing to the inclinations of the more than one million people gathered in that park in Chicago, IL, Obama responded with a different kind of "Yes, We Can" speech.

When red meat would have sufficed, Obama instead gave the adoring crowd a sober assessment of the road ahead:

"I know you didn't do this just to win an election and I know you didn't do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime - two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how they'll make the mortgage, or pay their doctor's bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair.

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you - we as a people will get there."

Tears streamed down my face as I watched Obama speak, as they did for many others.  My first vote for President was Jesse Jackson in the Democratic Primary of 1984, but it was more than this memory that caused this kind of emotional response.  For me, it was Obama's willingness to say that the road ahead would be hard, and that yet in that journey there was opportunity. 

Like many others, I had worked hard to make this day possible.  We should have been dancing in the streets in light of this triumph.  But instead, thanks to President-Elect Obama, we were brought back to earth.  The journey had, in fact, just begun.  This election gave us the chance to make change.  It was not change itself.

This was the kind of leadership for which we've hungered for many years.  It was the message we needed to hear. 

Manic before the Election

Madeline Kunin, the former Governor of Vermont, wrote a terrific post the other day about how she feels like a manic depressive in the final days of this campaign.

Governor Kunin, who has been canvassing very quietly and effectively in the Upper Valley with nothing more elaborate than a simple white name tag that reads "Madeline," wrote in her post that "that nothing can be taken for granted in the final days before an election. The only tonic for pre-election manic depression is to work for the campaign for as many hours and days of the week as possible."

So that's where I'm headed, first to Haverhill today and tomorrow for door-to-door canvassing, and then to Lyme to run our GOTV on Election Day.  You can get more information about what opportunities exist in and around Lyme at our Lyme Democratic Committee website. 

Like Kunin, I also find myself a-flutter, madly checking the latest polls on my iPhone. Slate has produced a really cool application that displays the latest polls state-by-state using some pretty neat visuals.  For $0.99, it's a real bargin and an example of how media ought to re-think themselves going forward.  Instead of simply publishing, they can also be producing and offering those products for sale to customers.  It does not help my mania, but it's sure great to use.

Helping to stabilize my mania are endorsements of Obama from conservatives of all stripes.  Yesterday, one of Reagan's chief of staffs, Ken Duberstein, endorsed Obama.  This morning there is a terrific post from Lyme's own Jeffrey Hart, a co-founder of the conservative Dartmouth Review, in which he re-affirmed his support for Obama with a terrific piece in Tina Brown's new venture, The Daily Beast.  Each of them help, but then memory kicks-in.

Obama was ahead in some polls by as much as ten points prior to the New Hampshire primary earlier this year.  I remember watching the early returns at a victory party, and people in the room looking bewildered as the numbers showed Hillary Clinton comfortably ahead.  Some 18% of NH voters made their decision the morning of the Primary, and they broke for Hillary.  The same could happen this Tuesday.

I saw it last weekend in Haverhill as I canvassed door-to-door.  We were identifying voters whom had not been reached yet, and to put it simply, these are not people who are going to buy the Slate poll tracker application anytime soon.  At door after door, I found voters who were not following the race closely, who did not know a lot about the candidates, and who had not made-up their minds.

As Howard Fineman of MSNBC and Newsweeks famously asked two days ago, "who are these people?"  

Let me tell you, they should be Democratic voters.  Many of them are working two or more jobs, their health security is minimal, and their optimism and hope for the future remains fragile at best.  Unfortunately, thanks to Nixon's Southern Strategy and the follow-on work of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, these voters separated their economic concerns from their political behavior more than a generation ago. They may indicate a preference for Obama today, but from the look in their eyes, that support seems tenuous at best.  On Election Day, as they drive to the polls, if these rural undecided voters see local gas prices remain way under $3, and there are no headlines about the stock market tanking, I believe they will vote McCain - Palin. 

Will it be enough for victory for the Republicans?

That's where the field goal unit, or field operations, for Obama can make all the difference in the world.  Turning out committed Obama voters in droves to the polls -- early and often in the states where it's permitted -- could make all the difference.  Here in Lyme we've been focused on absentee voters, who could account for as much as 15% of all votes cast.  There's no question Lyme will support Obama; adding "lay-up" votes from the absentee list helps broaden the margin and protect against towns where Obama's margin is far less, or under water.

It also makes a huge difference that the Obama campaign itself is NOT manic.  Campaign manager David Plouffe, by all accounts, remains the steady hand on the wheel and that kind of discipline should reverberate throughout the organization.  The Election might be close, but there are few people other than Obama and Plouffe who I'd rather have leading the final drive.

Ultimately, I do think Obama will prevail and in so doing, help this great nation  take a dramatic and historic turn.  Until then, however, there is a lot of hard work ahead of us. 

P.S.  Minutes after filing this post, the Associated Press filed a story saying that Obama's aunt has been living illegally in the US for the last four years.  It's stuff like this -- the small stuff magnified by the pressure cooker of the final run -- which can change an election.

Irrational

I began this post two weeks ago on October 14, 2008.  The demands of family, work, local politics, and a 1,001 things have caused me not to finish the post since then. 

But the title of this post remains as true as it was two weeks ago.  Here is what I wrote on October 14th:

Alan Greenspan made famous the phrase "irrational exuberance" several years ago when he described the dot-com bubble and its messy aftermath.

Fast forward to 2008, and we find ourselves in times when a simple "irrational" best describes the world in which we live.

Here are three signs that logic, like Elvis, has left the building.

1.  The Dow Jones Index increasing by more than 900 points on Monday, October 13th. 

Huh? 

I'm sure we are all relieved that it's NOT the end of the world as we know it, but surely we can't be that happy.  The fundamentals -- both good and bad -- remain. 

There is an expanding global middle class and red-hot economies abroad.  Let's add those to the "plus" column. 

On the other hand, a long and protracted global recession is surely not far away.  Trade imbalances, currency problems, shrinking consumer markets, weak regulations, and (perhaps most importantly) an imbalance in the flows of capital between mortgages, nationalized asset managers, and high net-worth individual and institutional managers make for a messy situation that will take years to untangle.

(I wrote the above paragraph on Sunday night, Oct 12th.  Stock markets have responded accordingly).

2. Obama is way ahead in both national polls and in the polls of battleground states.

Again, I remember sitting on a similar lead of 6-10 points in New Hampshire the night of the primary in January 2008. 

Who won?  Not Senator Obama.

Assume nothing, not just as a tactical strategy but as an imperative.  Despite more than 20 months on the campaign trail, which have included countless interviews and more than thousands of in-person appearances, Senator Obama remains far too unknown and, frankly, scary to too many people.  This past weekend I canvassed in northern New Hampshire and while I was cheered by the overwhelming number of Republican-leaning or Independent-minded voters who were supporting Obama -- in fact, it wasn't even close in my group...Obama had everyone's support -- I heard from other canvassers that McCain is the preferred choice of many.

Time and other duties intervened before I could point #3 to my list, but the basic facts of my post from two weeks remain as true today as they did.

1) Today we saw the Dow increase by nearly 900 points, just as it did two weeks ago.  Despite signs that consumer confidence was at an all-time low, investors over-reacted to the possible news of an interest rate cut to drive stocks higher.  Crazy?  You bet.

2) I got three different phone calls today from good, smart people who said the same, dumb thing: "Looks good for Obama, right?"

Wrong.  He's way ahead in terms of voters in battleground states who are voting early, but otherwise it's a tie, according to Zogby.  In fact, as Zogby reports today, and as we all saw in New Hampshire some 11 months ago, there are plenty of voters whose support for either candidates remains incredibly soft.  I heard today from Zogby that some 18% of New Hampshire voters on Primary Day 2008 made-up their minds that morning!  I think the same is true today.   This race is more fluid and tight than most people realize.

3) The crisis has gone global.  We may not see the effect until after November 4th, but when I wrote above about "red-hot economies abroad," I was wrong.  Think Poland and Iceland.  Even China and India project slower growth.  There has been a lot of football talk about how this crisis goes beyond any playbook that economists and central bankers currently know.  The global dimension makes it a 3-D crisis, which is both good and bad.  Good -- because actors like Prime Minister Gordon Brown of England can take the lead in solving this problem.  Bad -- because what might work for the US is not what it takes to solve the problems of Iceland, and worse, those problems might be big enough to drag other stakeholders into the mud.

These days, in the waning days of Fall, when most of the beautiful leaves have fallen to the ground, I found myself listening to "Darkness on the Edge of Town" by  Bruce Springsteen. 

There's a lot of concern in that album, but, in the middle of the ten songs on "Darkness," is a simple lyric:

"Mister, I ain't a boy, no, I am a man, and I believe in the promised land."

Last weekend I went from house to house, and in some cases from room to room, in some of the poorest neighborhoods of New Hampshire.  Far too many people I met should have been Obama supporters.  Their teeth were yellow, their houses falling down, their clothing threadbare in the face of what promises to be a difficult winter.  But they were for the man who promises more tax cuts for the wealthy, the most modest of health care reforms, and a continuation of the war in Iraq which is served by the sons and daughters of the people I met.

I could have been discouraged, and maybe after Election Day, if the figures add-up to a McCain victory, I will be extremely discouraged.  But even then, I won't give up.  I believe these good people can be on our side.  It may seem irrational, but I believe that the message and policies offered by Barack Obama and the Democratic Party will serve the interests of most people. 

I think we are extremely close to winning that argument.  The next seven days will make it clear if we have been successful.

Politics and the Search for American Identity

Let's get the obvious of the way.

Barack Obama is going to win the Presidential election in November 2008.  The issues dominating this race, and the desires of most voters, point to a solid Democratic victory in November.  Everyone knows the race will be tight and hard fought, but I believe that's how the election will ultimately conclude.

Stepping back from the immediate concerns of polls and pundits and campaign ads,  though, this election will also conclude what seems to have been a genuine search for American identity in the 21st century world.

At some level, of course, this is not surprising.  America's global reputation in the face of Iraq War is at an all-time low.  For the first time in 40 years, the Presidential race was wide open as neither party could offer an incumbent as their nominee.  For two years, and over the course of many debates and many more meaningful caucuses and primary elections than has previously occurred ever in American history, the nation's citizens argued and debated about which candidates best reflected the identity they sought for themselves and the nation.

This search was most easily seen in the Democratic race, whose breadth and strength of candidates (with one or two exceptions) permitted a year-long conversation that relied less on issues of policy or capability, and more on personal narrative.  Obama's campaign was largely based on this, at least tactically, but I'd argue that each of the candidates also spent significantly more time connecting their story to the times and needs of the nation today.  Think of Chris Dodd and his father's experience in Nuremburg, or John Edward's ever-present milltown memories, or Bill Richardson's intertwining of Hispanic and Western America.   

The Democrats also had a second act, a debate that grew more intense with each passing month.  Hillary Clinton's failure to win the nomination owes much, I'd argue, to her inability to have a consistent personal story about herself.  Every month there was a new theme to her campaign and a new story to tell about herself, whereas Obama remained consistent throughout the campaign.  In the final three months, she finally found her genuine story, one that resonated with voters and the nation, a story that emphasized "Hillary" instead of "Hillary Clinton."  It was too late for the campaign, but the resonance of her story remains.

The approach of the Republicans -- reeling from the disastrous and disingenuous Bush presidency -- was less direct than Democrat's search, but in the end, the result was very familiar.  McCain won because no one else had as consistent a story.  McCain was a war hero with a history of faithful service to the nation and the Republican party.  Full stop.  Like their Democratic counterparts, the Republicans candidates who failed in their quest for the nomination did so because their identities and stories were inconsistent.

Rudy Giuliani? A 9-11 hero, yes, but a conservative hypocrite on values.  Mitt Romney?  A strong executive, yes, but a man uncomfortable with his religion in the public domain and unable to show whether he had changed Massachusetts or it changed him as governor.  Mike Huckabee's early success in the primaries was entirely due to his emphasis on narrative, and the consistency of it.  He was the preacher from Arkansas who lost a lot of weight, could tell a joke, and liked rock and roll.  Not enough of a story to capture the hearts and minds of the nation going forward, but it was great opening act.

The attention paid Sarah Palin during the last two weeks also comes from the weight this election has placed on personal narrative and its relationship to American identity.  The McCain team has put everything about Palin, in fact, thru this prism of memoir (bear hunter, mother of five, hockey mom, etc).  The risk for the McCain camp is, of course, what if the Palin story isn't true or consistent?   

Staunch anti-conservative on values?  Not with a unwed teenage daughter who is pregnant.  Against earmarks?  Not after she took millions for her town and state.  Sold the plane on eBay?  Not only did she sell it elsewhere, she sold it for a loss.

The issue of consistency is vital to any narrative, and in that regard, I'd argue that Sarah Palin's early success owes as much to John Edward's horrible revelation before the Democratic National Convention as it does to her own story.

Edward's admission of an affair completely undid his entire narrative in one move.  Gone was the politician who could tell the story of a son of mill workers who worked hard, made a lot of money protecting the most vulnerable in our society, raised a family, and suffered personal losses and tragedies, the latest and most public of which involved the cancer of his wife, Elizabeth.  With his affair, Edwards's story completely changed from one of service to self-service.  Worse still, particularly among less partisan voters, the new Edwards identity confirmed their worst suspicions about politicians in general (read Giuliani) and about Democrats lately (read Clinton).

Throughout the Democratic convention, the stink from the Edwards story lingered.  At one gathering of New Hampshire Democrats, activists shook their heads over the Edwards saga.  "Can you imagine if he was our nominee now, and this came out?" one person told me.  The implication was clear.  Never mind that John Edwards opposes the Iraq war, wants health care for all, and supports dramatic energy and environment reform, all of which most voters support, too.  Had he been the nominee and then announced his affair, his campaign and the Democrats would have been finished.

Obama and McCain will have three more chances to tell their story to the American public.  With the race seemingly tied, the Presidential debates -- the first debate occurs in less than two weeks -- looms even larger and more consequential in deciding the outcome of this race.  It will be a chance to hear not only about policy, but I think in the minds of most voters, it will be a chance to a hear two very capable politicians tell their story.  Will it be the war hero who as a politican has tacked back-and-forth from maverick to faithful Republican?  Or the Illinois senator whose global, multi-racial story has been the bedrock of his campaign, and who can speak better than anyone else on the trail?  These are two excellent choices, but I think the man from the land of Lincoln will prevail.

Obama's Choice

By many accounts, Barack Obama has made his choice for Vice President on the Democratic ticket and will announce it later this week.

According to most pundits, it's the first and most important choice a candidate for the nation's highest office can make.

Most commentators ask, who is on the short list and why?

These are interesting question, but are they the best questions to ask?  The handicap narrative always works -- who is ahead, who is behind -- but it also does not necessarily advance our understanding or thoughtfulness about this important choice.

Let's review, for starters, why the VP choice matters.  First, that person is potentially next-in-line to become President.   And though it's only happened four times in more than 230 years, the transition from VP to POTUS happens overnight and without direct election. 

The VP choice also can help win the election, and govern thereafter.  Everyone agrees that since the disastrous choice of Dan Quayle in 1988 as Vice President to then-President George H.W. Bush, the role of the office has grown substantially both in terms of election-potential and impact on governance.  Put simply, the best VP candidates in 21st century look good and act smart.

Let me add one more: chemistry.  In 2000, Bush picked Dick Cheney (his head of the VP selection effort), a move which signaled a kind of external chemistry to conservative constituency groups that drove the Bush victories that year and four years later.  Cheney was a true believer, a behind-the-scenes operative who would do the tough deeds and make the most faithful arguments of importance to the conservative base. 

Clinton's choice of Gore in 1992 showed a similar amplification.  Gore was like Clinton -- a Southerner, policy wonk, and ambitious politician eager to reclaim the White House after 12 long years.  Chemistry, I'd argue, is less about the relationship between the two politicians and more about the external brand they create together.

So.....in that light, who is the best choice for Obama?  Better yet, who is the best choice for the nation?

My favorite from the begining has been Jim Webb.  The Democratic US Senator from Virginia in 2006, a former Republican cabinet secretary in the Reagan White House (Secretary of the Navy), writer and author of several best-selling books, and father a young man currently serving in Iraq, Webb meets all of the qualifications listed above.  Webb has said he is out, so let's remove him from the list.

I also like, frankly, Hillary Clinton.  She meets all of the qualifications stated above in spades, and if it weren't for husband Bill's boorish (and boyish) behavior during most of 2008, I think she would be the frontrunner for the job.

Many have suggested Joe Biden is the front-runner.  He'd be a good pick.  A bit loose of the tongue at times, but a solid individual. 

Frankly, I'm thrilled Chris Dodd continues to be mentioned for the job and think he would be excellent.  I'm not sure Chris adds significantly in terms of electability, but in terms of governance and external chemistry, it's harder to imagine a better choice.

There are other names being floated -- Governors Tim Kaine and Kathleen Sebelius among them --but don't think either of them meet the three standards listed above.  In that vein, I also think Evan Bayh won't do.  Nice guy, but....asleep at the podium.  I worry he simply does not have the capability to lead the nation. 

So, who should it be?  What choice would benefit the nation most?

Because I am writing, and not actually choosing, I will take the liberty of making three (!) choices. 

First, either Chris Dodd or Joe Biden.  Experience, gravitas, ballast, etc.  Just what the ticket needs.

But if not them, and if Obama thinks he could manage her partner, my choice would be....Hillary Rodham Clinton. 

If Obama picks her, the election is over.  Between the Clinton name, the dynamic of having a ticket with the first African-American and woman, and the power of having yesterday's leadership join Obama's forward-looking coalition, I think there is a strong case to make for her selection.

Maybe most importantly, it's not a Democratic case but an American case.  Hillary Clinton knows the crucible of defeat, and she also knows optimism.  In that vein, she really embodies the spirit of this great nation and if called to this role, I think she would be a terrific VP.

Stay tuned.
 

Political Reading Roundup, Summer 2008

For anyone curious to learn why Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination (and what happened to Hillary Clinton's campaign), it's re-assuring to know that plenty of good analysis and solid reporting exists about the fast-moving political events of the past week.  I'd recommend these stories for anyone interested in quick digest about what happened, and what mattered, over the last 18 months.  First, this story in the Wall Street Journal, followed by the New York Times, and then the Washington Post.

From where I stand, newspaper journalism seems essential to American democracy.  Beyond the need for a platform for exposing wrong-doing a la Watergate, newspaper journalists serve democracy with the luxury of time and space (barely) to write words -- in some cases, many words -- about what is happening and why it matters.

Never mind that the print media gets it wrong, or sometimes seems herdlike instead of independent.  Print journalists get to write.  They don't have to condense complicated issues into 30 seconds of airtime, whether via video or radio.  Print journalists get to write.  And writing, I'd maintain, serves democracy very well.  Instead of slogans or clever advertising, writing gives us nuance, detail, and context.

True enough, democracy also depends on the spoken word -- the debate, speech, or verbal repartee.  Every Sunday morning, four important television networks will televise a program for at least 30 minutes that simply showcases the importance of the verbal argument to politics. 

I'd argue, however, that at the end of the day, whether it's print journalism or verbal parry, the health of American democracy depends very heavily on the quality and availability of a significant number of words that can be considered, chewed, and debated.  American democracy is not simply a thumbs-up or thumbs-down proposition.  It's an exercise of intellect, nuance, and emotion in the constrained boundaries of time, and the availability of enough words (spoken or written) helps citizens and political leaders meet their responsibility.

So, in that context, when it seems like newspapers are failing and blogs are flailing, when it's hard to tell old media from new media, what are the best sources for political news and insight in the summer of 2008? 

Let me start with "The Page" by Mark Halperin.  Mark used to be the Political Director of ABC News, but with the emergence of the Internet, he began to write a daily post known as The Note on abcnews.com that quickly became must-reading among the Beltway literati.  He now publishes "The Page" in conjunction with CNN and Time magazine and I highly recommend it.  Halperin's site combines writing and editing, especially the latter.  Without relying on flashy graphics or layouts (watch the Wordpress re-directs as you access the site), Halperin instead seems to focus on judgment to post the most important and significant political news of the moment on his site.  Halperin occasionally writes his own pieces on the site, but more often than note, his touch is editorial, promoting the significant news reported elsewhere, and connecting the dots between that story and the current political scene.

For instance, during the Obama-Clinton race, Halperin kept a running tally of the day's superdelegate declarations.  Over the course of the months of late March, April, and May, readers of the Page got a very clear sense that one-by-one, superdelegates were choosing Obama despite Clinton's surge at the end of the primary calendar.

I'm also a big fan of three podcasts on politics -- KCRW's "Left, Right, and Center," the analysis of Mark Shields and David Brooks on PBS's "Lehrer Newshour," and The New Yorker's political podcast known as "The Campaign Trail."

Both "Left, Right, and Center" and "Shields and Brooks" are examples of old media sidling-up to new media formats.  "Left, Right, and Center" is a public radio program originating out of Santa Monica, CA for at least ten years.  Capably hosted by former Clinton staffer, Matt Miller, "Left, Right, and Center" also includes Tony Blankley (Newt Gingrich's former press chief), Robert Scheer of the San Francisco Chronicle, and the hot new media maven herself, Arianna Huffington.  Although Huffington has been away from the show for a while of late (see my comments below on the interesting divide between Arianna Huffington the person and Arianna the persona), this quartet has been civilly debating political matters great and small for a long time.  Think of it as the McLaughlin Report, only from outside the Beltway and replete with qualities like intelligence, consideration, and moderation, all of which the McLaughlin Report avoids in favor of ego.

The same can be said of the podcast available from PBS's "Newshour with Jim Lehrer." Every Friday, David Brooks from the New York Times and columnist Mark Shields use about 12-15 minutes of television time to debate the past week's political events. Brooks has become one of the best writers, and thinkers, on political issues in the country, and a rarity on the Right: a conservative with a brain.  Shields is equally well-informed and considered -- a campaign staffer to Bobby Kennedy in 1968, Edmund Muskie in 1972, and Mo Udall in 1976.  Like "Left, Right, and Center," these two commentators get enough time on the broadcast to be thoughtful.  They discuss.  They don't diatribe.

It's no surprise that the New Yorker's newest podcast, The Campaign Trail, also avoids the trap offered by 30 seconds of instanpundit.  Hosted by Dorothy Wickenden, the magazine's executive editor, the podcast also includes longtime writer Hendrick Hertzberg and Ryan Lizza, the magazine's Washington correspondent.  Wickenden has long been a major force in American news magazine journalism, but finally here we readers (and now listeners) get a chance to see her quick mind at work.  Like Business Week's podcast with editor John Byrne, it's also a rare chance at an inside-listen between top reporters and their editor. 

Finally, there's Politico.  Founded by Robert Allbritton, Frederick Ryan, John Harris, and Jim VandeHei, Politico is both a printed publication and hot-hot-hot Internet read.  Unlike Drudge or even the Huffington Post, however, Politico's internet edition comes with brains.  Ben Smith's blog on the '08 race seemed to be updated every hour, with just the right sentence or two explaining why that particular bit of news mattered. Roger Simon's thoughtful essays on the dynamics of the campaign -- note this gem from early April, reading the entrails of the Clinton campaign as it began to fall apart but before everyone else had figured it out -- are must reading.  It's wonderful having an entire publication devoted to national politics. 

Those of us who live in northern New England also benefit from reading "Vermont Daily Briefing," a blog written by a real writer and author, Philip Baruth, who has three novels to his credit along with ten years of radio commentary on Vermont Public Radio.  Baruth is also creating a new role for himself in the Green Mountain State: political activist.  This past month, Baruth won a race to become a delegate for Obama at the national convention.  Imagine if a writer actually held office?  The good news is that Baruth's sharp eye (and even sharper keyboard) doesn't focus on Vermont politics only.  He's got a keen bead on the Clintons, among many other national political figures.

So, here's the critique in the roundup: The Huffington Post.  Anyone who has followed Arianna Huffington's career knows she is 1) smart, 2) articulate, 3) ambitious, 4) good-looking, 5) a risk-taker, and 6) not from the heartland of America. 

Born in Greece, educated in England (no less than Cambridge University), Huffington has created the kind of life for herself that can only occur in place like America with its wonderful tolerance and support for re-invention.  She's an entrepreneur's entrepreneur, and that's meant as a genuine compliment.

The problem is, her latest creation, The Huffington Post, deserves few compliments.  Oh, sure, it's a great place to go on the Internet if a reader wants the left-wing version of Fox News (e.g., big, booming headlines, all of which scream Obama-friendly, progressive news that must-be-read-now). 

Initially the Huffington Post did real journalism, being the only outlet to chase the New York Times Iraq scandal involving Judith Miller, Valerie Plame, and frankly most of the Bush White House.  Huffington connected the dots between Plame's outing, Miller's poor, Pennsylvania-Avenue-fed reporting, and the desire by the Bush administration to cover-up their incompetence for going to war with Iraq.  It was gutsy stuff, and the kind of work which suggested that Arianna Huffington had found her home at last.

Unfortunately, since that break-through journalism, the Huffington Post has deteriorated into something more like a British Broad Street tabloid than a serious Internet journal. 

Visit any day and find -- in addition to the big-type headlines -- a whole slew of really important stories, including (as I write) links to stories that claim Lindsay Lohan is a lesbian, a pregnant man, Rupert Everett's view on the state of British soldiers, and....oh...what is...this?.....another link to Arianna Huffington's latest appearance on American television.

Hardly a day goes by on the Huffington Post without a link appearing that promotes Ms. Huffington in some flattering way.  Perhaps it's just Arianna being Arianna.  No doubt Ms. Huffington is a very complicated person - witness her marriage to uber-rightwinger, bi-sexual, former Congressman Michale Huffington -- but over time, the act and the Huffington Post itself has grown old.  Instead of big type and screaming headlines (and those ridiculous celeb-bloggers), Ms. Huffington would do better to return to the quiet of radio.  On "Left, Right, and Center" her comments are lucid and insightful; on The Huffington Post, it's like watching a good band undone by smoke bombs and "Hello Cleveland."

That's it.  No mention of a million other possible sites -- from The Fix, to Daily Kos, to Blue Hampshire.  Hey...a guy's gotta get back to work and regular life, right?