So, Obama has chosen his VP. What does his choice say about Obama and where the Obama campaign thinks it is stragegically?
First, choosing an 'Establishment' politician, a Senator who first went to Washington when Obama was just 11 years old, is a clear sign that Obama and his advisors believe they need to compensate for their weaknesses in terms of maturity and experience. McCain has been hammering Obama over his lack of foreign policy credentials, and picking Biden was clearly an attempt to counter this hole in the Obama resume. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Team Obama thinks it is losing, and that it had to do something to regain credibility.
Second, all of the hype about 'Hope' and 'Change' has been shown to be just that... hype. Obama is 'in it to win it' and will do what he thinks he needs to do at any time to gain the presidency. Now, this is not necessarily a Bad Thing; successful politicians need to win, and recognizing a problem and correcting it are good qualities. However, when the pivot is seen to be on principle instead of on strategies or tactics, and the excuse of expediency won't cover pivots on ideals. How does Obama explain now that McCain's judgment to support the Iraq War disqualifies him from the presidency when his own VP voted alongside McCain?
What about Hillary? Turns out she wasn't even seriously considered. What does that say to the PUMAs... the die-hard Hillary supporters? Picking Biden is a clear shot across the Clinton bow, a statement that Biden is more qualified than Hillary. Do the Democrats really think this is true? Certainly Hillary's supporters don't... so much for party unity.
All in all, choosing Biden was a strategic mistake by Obama. The man has a deserved reputation for opening his mouth without thinking, and he has left considerable ammunition for the Republicans to use in the fall campaign. No one who was unsure about voting for Obama has their concerns addressed. And, Biden is at best an average debator.
Who should Obama have chosen? Well, certainly not Hillary... because of her baggage and her antipathy to Obama. Who'd want to be president with Bill and Hillary just down the hall waiting like vultures for misfortune to strike? Not Gore... ugh! Certainly not Biden, or Bill Richardson.
How about thinking outside the box? What about... Joe Lieberman? The people who like Hillary tend to like Lieberman, and certainly McCain can't go out and bash the candidate who has worked for him. Yes, it would have upset the netroots, but are they really going to vote for McCain? Especially after the Great Uniter explains that Lieberman on the ticket brings all of the Democrats under the Big Tent? The only question is, would Lieberman have accepted? Other good choices include Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, certainly acceptable to most Democrats and a good way to bring the Hillary supporters back.
Either choice would have been better for Obama... if Obama thought he was perceived as being ready to assume the role of President. It's going to take more than Joe Biden to fix that.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Obama: In Need of a Game-Changer
The upcoming presidential election is getting more interesting by the day... depending upon who you want to see win and who you listen to among the punditocracy. This is supposed to be the Democrats' year, and by extension Obama is our next president. He's certainly been all-but-appointed to the office by a largely sympathetic media.
However, the McCain campaign isn't just sitting there. McCain and his staff have done a good job of analyzing Obama's weak points and hitting them, reducing Obama's large lead in June to either a statistical tie or an actual McCain advantage depending on which poll you look at. Historically, because of the polling methodology that is used, the Democrat has a statistically significant lead in the summer; both Kerry and Gore had double-digit leads at this time during their campaigns. Democrat spokespeople shrug off any concern, either denying or decrying the polling data. The Obama campaign is worried, though, and that is the best evidence of how effective the McCain strategy to define Obama has been.
Enter David Gergen, the onetime Bush Sr. and Clinton advisor, who has written a column today on what Obama needs to do to 'change the game.' Gergen's advice can be summed up as follows: pick Hillary for VP, or pick Gore, and then pick Clinton-era advisors. Huh?
Picking Hillary will be the kiss of death for Obama in '08. Is there any person who is more polarizing in politics today? Obama could get more votes by picking George Bush! If Hillary is Obama's VP, the 51% of the electorate who can't stand her will vote for McCain... and that includes many among the Obama supporters who will feel utterly betrayed if Hillary gets the nod. Strike one...
How about Gore? Yes, Democrats like Gore. Does anyone else? Will Obama get any more votes? Certainly not the PUMAs who are pissed about what they see as a total diss of Hillary by the Democratic leadership. How about Hillary herself? Does anyone with half a brain think that the Clintons will campaign more effectively for Obama/Gore this fall than they did for Gore/Lieberman in 2000? And, is Gore stupid enough to wear another 'Please kick me' sign for the next few months? I don't think so; his ego is way too fragile to chance losing yet again. What's in it for him, anyway? He's already been VP for 8 years! He'll get savaged over his ecohypocrisy... his huge house with the huge electric bill and the inadequate solar panels, his continual private jetting, his fleet of Suburbans, etc. He'll have to divest himself from all of those profitable investments. The chances of Gore being asked, and then accepting, the VP slot are nil. He and Obama know it, and that's why he's emphatically disavowed any interest in being selected. Strike two...
Okay, so Obama can't pick Hillary or Gore. What about the idea of announcing his Cabinet picks before the election? Not bad... unless he listens to Gergen and selects the same old retreads from the Carter and Clinton Administrations. Madeline freakin' Albright for SecState? I can see the campaign ads with Obama and Madeline... and then Madeline and her favorite party-boy Kim Jong-Il... and then images of North Korean missile launches, nuclear tests, etc. The McCain campaign just has to be praying for this like the dog in a Gary Larsen cartoon waiting for the cat to jump in the dryer... "Oh, please, oh, please, oh, please!"
That's three strikes, for three lousy ideas. If you want Obama to win, that is. Because nothing Gergen suggests addresses Obama's problem. (BTW, what is really amazing is how much people like Gergen can get paid for truly horrible advice. It's not like he helped out the Clintons, or Bush Sr. -- maybe Gergen clients didn't read the memo about doing the opposite of what he suggests -- ed)
Here's the game-changer that Obama really needs: how about realizing that your equivocating, evasion, and prevaricating is a real turn-off for people who were looking for something different from you. You promised a new type of politics, but your actions belie that. The Saddleback appearances by you and McCain were a real eye-opener, and if you don't change McCain is going to eat you for lunch during the upcoming debates. Yes, Clinton got away with it but that was 16 years ago, before the Internet and the rise of alternative media. We've seen that movie.
In all seriousness, I don't think Obama can 'change his game' at this point, because 'the game' is all he knows. The panic we're seeing in the media and among many on the Left is buyer's remorse. The netroots were able to 'game' the Democrat primary rules (the same way they beat Lieberman with Ned Lamont only to see Lieberman win as an independent) and put Obama ahead on Super Tuesday. The Idea of Obama was too seductive. Too late, they're starting to realize that there is no 'there' there. Every Democrat leader has to be agonizing about whether or not it's too late to pick Hillary... and about what will happen to the party if they do (convention chaos and a fragmented party), and if they do not (electoral disaster).
Look forward to a very contentious Democrat convention, and the very real possibility of a Republican landslide this fall. Far from being a Democrat year, this election is rapidly becoming McCain's to lose. Who would have thought?
However, the McCain campaign isn't just sitting there. McCain and his staff have done a good job of analyzing Obama's weak points and hitting them, reducing Obama's large lead in June to either a statistical tie or an actual McCain advantage depending on which poll you look at. Historically, because of the polling methodology that is used, the Democrat has a statistically significant lead in the summer; both Kerry and Gore had double-digit leads at this time during their campaigns. Democrat spokespeople shrug off any concern, either denying or decrying the polling data. The Obama campaign is worried, though, and that is the best evidence of how effective the McCain strategy to define Obama has been.
Enter David Gergen, the onetime Bush Sr. and Clinton advisor, who has written a column today on what Obama needs to do to 'change the game.' Gergen's advice can be summed up as follows: pick Hillary for VP, or pick Gore, and then pick Clinton-era advisors. Huh?
Picking Hillary will be the kiss of death for Obama in '08. Is there any person who is more polarizing in politics today? Obama could get more votes by picking George Bush! If Hillary is Obama's VP, the 51% of the electorate who can't stand her will vote for McCain... and that includes many among the Obama supporters who will feel utterly betrayed if Hillary gets the nod. Strike one...
How about Gore? Yes, Democrats like Gore. Does anyone else? Will Obama get any more votes? Certainly not the PUMAs who are pissed about what they see as a total diss of Hillary by the Democratic leadership. How about Hillary herself? Does anyone with half a brain think that the Clintons will campaign more effectively for Obama/Gore this fall than they did for Gore/Lieberman in 2000? And, is Gore stupid enough to wear another 'Please kick me' sign for the next few months? I don't think so; his ego is way too fragile to chance losing yet again. What's in it for him, anyway? He's already been VP for 8 years! He'll get savaged over his ecohypocrisy... his huge house with the huge electric bill and the inadequate solar panels, his continual private jetting, his fleet of Suburbans, etc. He'll have to divest himself from all of those profitable investments. The chances of Gore being asked, and then accepting, the VP slot are nil. He and Obama know it, and that's why he's emphatically disavowed any interest in being selected. Strike two...
Okay, so Obama can't pick Hillary or Gore. What about the idea of announcing his Cabinet picks before the election? Not bad... unless he listens to Gergen and selects the same old retreads from the Carter and Clinton Administrations. Madeline freakin' Albright for SecState? I can see the campaign ads with Obama and Madeline... and then Madeline and her favorite party-boy Kim Jong-Il... and then images of North Korean missile launches, nuclear tests, etc. The McCain campaign just has to be praying for this like the dog in a Gary Larsen cartoon waiting for the cat to jump in the dryer... "Oh, please, oh, please, oh, please!"
That's three strikes, for three lousy ideas. If you want Obama to win, that is. Because nothing Gergen suggests addresses Obama's problem. (BTW, what is really amazing is how much people like Gergen can get paid for truly horrible advice. It's not like he helped out the Clintons, or Bush Sr. -- maybe Gergen clients didn't read the memo about doing the opposite of what he suggests -- ed)
Here's the game-changer that Obama really needs: how about realizing that your equivocating, evasion, and prevaricating is a real turn-off for people who were looking for something different from you. You promised a new type of politics, but your actions belie that. The Saddleback appearances by you and McCain were a real eye-opener, and if you don't change McCain is going to eat you for lunch during the upcoming debates. Yes, Clinton got away with it but that was 16 years ago, before the Internet and the rise of alternative media. We've seen that movie.
In all seriousness, I don't think Obama can 'change his game' at this point, because 'the game' is all he knows. The panic we're seeing in the media and among many on the Left is buyer's remorse. The netroots were able to 'game' the Democrat primary rules (the same way they beat Lieberman with Ned Lamont only to see Lieberman win as an independent) and put Obama ahead on Super Tuesday. The Idea of Obama was too seductive. Too late, they're starting to realize that there is no 'there' there. Every Democrat leader has to be agonizing about whether or not it's too late to pick Hillary... and about what will happen to the party if they do (convention chaos and a fragmented party), and if they do not (electoral disaster).
Look forward to a very contentious Democrat convention, and the very real possibility of a Republican landslide this fall. Far from being a Democrat year, this election is rapidly becoming McCain's to lose. Who would have thought?
Sunday, June 22, 2008
How to Solve the Energy Crisis: Part 1
I've been thinking about America's energy crisis for a while now, and believe I pretty much have it figured out. A post on solar power , about adding 3kW of solar panels to a house in order to move their net electricity usage down into the lowest price bracket, sparked the idea for a series of articles on how America can solve its energy crisis. It all comes down to one thing: cheap electricity. This is the first article, on how a lot of little things can add up. Facts were obtained by Googling appropriately.
A 3kW/h system should generate more than 15 kilowatts on a sunny day. The average house uses about 500 kilowatt/hours per month, meaning that this system would be able to replace most, if not all, of the energy used by the house it is installed on.
Interestingly, power is consumed at the highest rate during the day, especially on hot, sunny days. That's because, while household usage is down, business usage is at its highest. So... if every house in CA had just enough PV generation capacity to provide 10% of its daily use, or 1.5kW/h worth of generation, there would be no electricity crisis in California.
How much would this cost? Well, figure 8,000,000 homes, x 1500 watts x $4, or about $48 billion, for 12 gW of generating capacity. There's 30 million people in CA, so about $1500 per person, or $500 per family. Now, this would be a one-time investment that could be amortized over the life of the PV generation systems, or about 20 years... so figure $25/year per person.
I know, $48 billion is a lot of money... but how much will it cost to bring an extra 10% of power generation capacity online thru a generating plant (coil, gas, nuclear), and pay for 20 years of fuel, pay for the infrastructure (high power lines, towers, etc.) to support the new plant, and pay for the staff to run and maintain it?
For the sake of comparison, a 1.34 gW coal-powered generating plant, with a coal mine on-site(!) that provides 70% of the coal needed for the plant, was purchased in WA state for $554 million. So... you're looking at a little over $2 per watt for coal-fired generation, or about half that of PV. However, the $200 million required for new smoke scrubbers needs to be factored in, plus the cost of the 30% of coal needed daily to generate the power, plus the cost of the staff to operate the mine and power plant, plus the cost of the new transmission line infrastructure needed to support the plant and hook it to the grid, plus the cost of maintenance, etc., and what happens to the operating costs when the mine runs out of coal? By the way, this plant just added two natural gas-fired turbine generators, so perhaps they know more about coal costs and availability than we do.
The state of California takes in over $1 trillion of tax revenue each year. Surely it could offer a 3-year tax break (give people a tax credit for 1/3 of the cost each year for 3 years), and ensure this gets up by requiring every house to add this within a 5-year window.
I know, it's a great idea. Figure the odds of it ever happening.
A 3kW/h system should generate more than 15 kilowatts on a sunny day. The average house uses about 500 kilowatt/hours per month, meaning that this system would be able to replace most, if not all, of the energy used by the house it is installed on.
Interestingly, power is consumed at the highest rate during the day, especially on hot, sunny days. That's because, while household usage is down, business usage is at its highest. So... if every house in CA had just enough PV generation capacity to provide 10% of its daily use, or 1.5kW/h worth of generation, there would be no electricity crisis in California.
How much would this cost? Well, figure 8,000,000 homes, x 1500 watts x $4, or about $48 billion, for 12 gW of generating capacity. There's 30 million people in CA, so about $1500 per person, or $500 per family. Now, this would be a one-time investment that could be amortized over the life of the PV generation systems, or about 20 years... so figure $25/year per person.
I know, $48 billion is a lot of money... but how much will it cost to bring an extra 10% of power generation capacity online thru a generating plant (coil, gas, nuclear), and pay for 20 years of fuel, pay for the infrastructure (high power lines, towers, etc.) to support the new plant, and pay for the staff to run and maintain it?
For the sake of comparison, a 1.34 gW coal-powered generating plant, with a coal mine on-site(!) that provides 70% of the coal needed for the plant, was purchased in WA state for $554 million. So... you're looking at a little over $2 per watt for coal-fired generation, or about half that of PV. However, the $200 million required for new smoke scrubbers needs to be factored in, plus the cost of the 30% of coal needed daily to generate the power, plus the cost of the staff to operate the mine and power plant, plus the cost of the new transmission line infrastructure needed to support the plant and hook it to the grid, plus the cost of maintenance, etc., and what happens to the operating costs when the mine runs out of coal? By the way, this plant just added two natural gas-fired turbine generators, so perhaps they know more about coal costs and availability than we do.
The state of California takes in over $1 trillion of tax revenue each year. Surely it could offer a 3-year tax break (give people a tax credit for 1/3 of the cost each year for 3 years), and ensure this gets up by requiring every house to add this within a 5-year window.
I know, it's a great idea. Figure the odds of it ever happening.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
The Winning Hit
(May 18, 2008) - Jose Lopez connects with the ball to knock in two runs, putting the Seattle Mariners in the lead at the bottom of the 8th inning. The Mariners would hold that lead for the next half-inning, defeating the Padres 3-1.
How often does a photo catch the bat making contact with the ball, much less on the winning hit? This is the first time I've ever done it. Pretty neat!
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
'Thanks, Bro...'
Who would have thought that the Republicans had a chance of holding on to the White House in 2008 a few months ago? After the '06 Congressional election, the Conventional Wisdom held that the Democrats would win the White House in a walk. Hillary was the Heiress Apparent. Then, we saw the rise of Obama as the New Messiah, sent to assume the mantle of Leader of the Free World, an unstoppable force. Hillary or Obama? At any rate, most certainly not a Republican.
Things started to change after Super Tuesday. The Clinton campaign (I believe Bill gets the credit for this strategy) came to the sober realization that if Hillary was going to win, it could only be by dragging Obama down into the dirt and making him seem like just another politician. Better yet, by painting him as the stereotypical Black Candidate instead of the candidate who happened to be Black. There is a crucial difference here; a Black Candidate, such as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, represents only Black Americans (and only the more radical ones), while a candidate who happens to be Black can legitimately claim to represent all Americans... and Americans of all ethnicities can identify with him. This was the Clinton strategy first used after the South Carolina primary, where Bill Clinton made an oblique reference to Obama's support from Black voters as to be expected, "like Jesse Jackson's support." Tie your opponent with someone who is highly unpopular, in the same way that "Dole-Gingrich" was used to tie Dole in with Newt Gingrich during the '96 presidential campaigns.
Obama's only hope for mass appeal was not to be identified as the Black Candidate. Mid-America might well vote for a candidate who happened to be Black, but a Black Candidate has no chance. He was very good at resisting this characterization... until the radical sermons of Jeremiah Wright, his pastor at his Chicago church, came to light. Obama's speech on race was more of an evasion than a response, but it was well-worded and accomplished his goal of receiving the benefit of the doubt from the majority of Democrat primary voters.
Then the 'bitter clingers' comment came to light, and the Clinton campaign waisted no time in using the comment to paint Obama as an out-of-touch elitist, again making it easier for White lower- and middle-class Democrat voters to view Obama as a 'Them' instead of an 'Us'. In my opinion these comments cost Obama his chance to put Hillary away in Pennsylvania.
The fatal wound, the stab in the back, came this previous Monday courtesy of Reverend Wright and his speeches to the NAACP and the National Press Club. Wright gleefully stripped his defenders of their claim that outrage towards him was due to taking his statements out of context, defied those who challenged him, and worst of all portrayed Obama as a liar who repudiated himself from Wright solely for reasons of political expediency. In other words, Obama's own minister publically declared him to be just another say-anything-to-get-elected politician. Imagine the political ads! This damning statement from his own pastor cost Obama any chance he has at the presidency, at least for this election. With friends like this, who needs enemies?
I don't know who will get the Democratic nomination. I think it will still be Obama; the nomination will be decided by the superdelegates before the convention and they have have no good choices. If they stick with Obama, they're going with a candidate who will not win against McCain, because he will not get the moderate white Democrat vote. If they switch to Hillary, Obama's young activist supports and especially his black supporters will be outraged, perhaps to the point of destroying the Democrat Party, and a mixed Clinton-Obama ticket with Obama as VP won't fly for the same reason. Their only choice is a different nominee, and who are they going to choose from? The primary losers who were eliminated early? McCain will cream them. Al Gore? Even Al isn't stupid enough to run against McCain? John Kerry? The fake war hero couldn't win against a reservist; does anyone think he'll do better against a real war hero, especially since he hasn't repudiated the SwiftVet charges because he can't? Joe Lieberman? A rational choice, yet unacceptable to the Progressive Kossacks, who will revolt. They have no bench.
Why did all this happen? Why did the glorious dream turn to ashes? Two words: the Clintons. The Clintons want back in the White House. No... make that the Clintons believe they are entitled to return, and they will do anything to win. Even if it means destroying the Democrat Party. Hillary's worst nightmare is for Obama to win in November; that will end her presidential aspirations. She knows that she can't win the nomination this year, and the superdelegates will not give it to her for fear of the consequences (blacks and progressives leaving the party in droves). Far better to destroy him now, to weaken him so that he can't win, and then run again in 2012, saying "You should have picked me in '08!" You just know Hillary's pissed at Obama for costing her a sure thing... "Damn him anyway for running!" (I'm sure that's the kindest thought she's had about Obama in a long time!)
The Democrat Party never forgives a loser. What Obama should do now is to realize that a Democrat can't win in '08! so let Hillary take the fall! My advice: bow out now! Hold a press conference saying something along the lines of "For the sake of party unity, and because this country that I love is greater than any one person, we have to end this fight in order to beat the Republicans. I am going to cede the nomination to my opponent Hillary, and I will work to get her elected." And then, work as hard for Hillary as she and Bill did for Al Gore and John Kerry (not very hard at all), while letting a few choice friends in the media know why you withdrew (because the water was poisoned by Hillary and Bill and their scorched-earth tactic of using race to divide the Democrat Party). Put a bug in Jeremiah Wright's ear about all this, and let him go forth and trumpet about the Clinton racist conspiracy to deprive a Black man of his legitimate chance. Suppress the black vote, and Hillary cannot win. Then, watch the Party turn on the Clintons after the loss in November, and drive them out.
The activists will love this noble self-sacrifice. The party leaders will shrink in fear and know they have to make a gesture to regain black support, and they'll do it. Obama will be lauded from every Democrat mountaintop. He will be a shoo-in for the 2012 nomination. He'll learn from his mistakes this year, and the public will largely forget those mistakes. If McCain is very popular, wait until 2016... Obama is still young. If not... the office is his. If he plays his cards right.
Obama's only chance to be president is if he gets out now while he is still relatively unscarred, letting Hillary get clobbered. It's nervy, though. Does he have the courage to do it? Most likely not.
Things started to change after Super Tuesday. The Clinton campaign (I believe Bill gets the credit for this strategy) came to the sober realization that if Hillary was going to win, it could only be by dragging Obama down into the dirt and making him seem like just another politician. Better yet, by painting him as the stereotypical Black Candidate instead of the candidate who happened to be Black. There is a crucial difference here; a Black Candidate, such as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, represents only Black Americans (and only the more radical ones), while a candidate who happens to be Black can legitimately claim to represent all Americans... and Americans of all ethnicities can identify with him. This was the Clinton strategy first used after the South Carolina primary, where Bill Clinton made an oblique reference to Obama's support from Black voters as to be expected, "like Jesse Jackson's support." Tie your opponent with someone who is highly unpopular, in the same way that "Dole-Gingrich" was used to tie Dole in with Newt Gingrich during the '96 presidential campaigns.
Obama's only hope for mass appeal was not to be identified as the Black Candidate. Mid-America might well vote for a candidate who happened to be Black, but a Black Candidate has no chance. He was very good at resisting this characterization... until the radical sermons of Jeremiah Wright, his pastor at his Chicago church, came to light. Obama's speech on race was more of an evasion than a response, but it was well-worded and accomplished his goal of receiving the benefit of the doubt from the majority of Democrat primary voters.
Then the 'bitter clingers' comment came to light, and the Clinton campaign waisted no time in using the comment to paint Obama as an out-of-touch elitist, again making it easier for White lower- and middle-class Democrat voters to view Obama as a 'Them' instead of an 'Us'. In my opinion these comments cost Obama his chance to put Hillary away in Pennsylvania.
The fatal wound, the stab in the back, came this previous Monday courtesy of Reverend Wright and his speeches to the NAACP and the National Press Club. Wright gleefully stripped his defenders of their claim that outrage towards him was due to taking his statements out of context, defied those who challenged him, and worst of all portrayed Obama as a liar who repudiated himself from Wright solely for reasons of political expediency. In other words, Obama's own minister publically declared him to be just another say-anything-to-get-elected politician. Imagine the political ads! This damning statement from his own pastor cost Obama any chance he has at the presidency, at least for this election. With friends like this, who needs enemies?
I don't know who will get the Democratic nomination. I think it will still be Obama; the nomination will be decided by the superdelegates before the convention and they have have no good choices. If they stick with Obama, they're going with a candidate who will not win against McCain, because he will not get the moderate white Democrat vote. If they switch to Hillary, Obama's young activist supports and especially his black supporters will be outraged, perhaps to the point of destroying the Democrat Party, and a mixed Clinton-Obama ticket with Obama as VP won't fly for the same reason. Their only choice is a different nominee, and who are they going to choose from? The primary losers who were eliminated early? McCain will cream them. Al Gore? Even Al isn't stupid enough to run against McCain? John Kerry? The fake war hero couldn't win against a reservist; does anyone think he'll do better against a real war hero, especially since he hasn't repudiated the SwiftVet charges because he can't? Joe Lieberman? A rational choice, yet unacceptable to the Progressive Kossacks, who will revolt. They have no bench.
Why did all this happen? Why did the glorious dream turn to ashes? Two words: the Clintons. The Clintons want back in the White House. No... make that the Clintons believe they are entitled to return, and they will do anything to win. Even if it means destroying the Democrat Party. Hillary's worst nightmare is for Obama to win in November; that will end her presidential aspirations. She knows that she can't win the nomination this year, and the superdelegates will not give it to her for fear of the consequences (blacks and progressives leaving the party in droves). Far better to destroy him now, to weaken him so that he can't win, and then run again in 2012, saying "You should have picked me in '08!" You just know Hillary's pissed at Obama for costing her a sure thing... "Damn him anyway for running!" (I'm sure that's the kindest thought she's had about Obama in a long time!)
The Democrat Party never forgives a loser. What Obama should do now is to realize that a Democrat can't win in '08! so let Hillary take the fall! My advice: bow out now! Hold a press conference saying something along the lines of "For the sake of party unity, and because this country that I love is greater than any one person, we have to end this fight in order to beat the Republicans. I am going to cede the nomination to my opponent Hillary, and I will work to get her elected." And then, work as hard for Hillary as she and Bill did for Al Gore and John Kerry (not very hard at all), while letting a few choice friends in the media know why you withdrew (because the water was poisoned by Hillary and Bill and their scorched-earth tactic of using race to divide the Democrat Party). Put a bug in Jeremiah Wright's ear about all this, and let him go forth and trumpet about the Clinton racist conspiracy to deprive a Black man of his legitimate chance. Suppress the black vote, and Hillary cannot win. Then, watch the Party turn on the Clintons after the loss in November, and drive them out.
The activists will love this noble self-sacrifice. The party leaders will shrink in fear and know they have to make a gesture to regain black support, and they'll do it. Obama will be lauded from every Democrat mountaintop. He will be a shoo-in for the 2012 nomination. He'll learn from his mistakes this year, and the public will largely forget those mistakes. If McCain is very popular, wait until 2016... Obama is still young. If not... the office is his. If he plays his cards right.
Obama's only chance to be president is if he gets out now while he is still relatively unscarred, letting Hillary get clobbered. It's nervy, though. Does he have the courage to do it? Most likely not.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Just For Now
Imogene Heap's "Just For Now" recorded at a Philadelphia radio station, is without a doubt the most incredible live performance I've ever seen, by a true virtuoso. Note that none of the song was pre-recorded; Heap assembles the song as she goes, recording and replaying the various layers to create a perfectly-crafted acapella.
Heap has a beautiful voice, is a talented lyricist and musician, and her ability to perform live a very challenging act (if she had made one mistake the song is over) is superb. Celine Dion can sing, but I much prefer Heap's voice, and I can't stand watching Dion perform. I could watch this video over and over. Heap's virtuosity is as fascinating as it is magical, and her raw talent that is so well-showcased on this video staggers the imagination.
I honestly don't see how she can become any better.
Heap has a beautiful voice, is a talented lyricist and musician, and her ability to perform live a very challenging act (if she had made one mistake the song is over) is superb. Celine Dion can sing, but I much prefer Heap's voice, and I can't stand watching Dion perform. I could watch this video over and over. Heap's virtuosity is as fascinating as it is magical, and her raw talent that is so well-showcased on this video staggers the imagination.
I honestly don't see how she can become any better.
Friday, November 30, 2007
DRM and the Kindle
One of the most contentious aspects of Amazon's new Kindle e-reader is that it will not allow users to read copy-protected (also referred to as 'DRM' or digital rights management, a fancier way of saying the same thing) eBooks from sources other than Amazon. This seems like a really bad idea, but maybe it's necessary.
First, a little history. The .MOBI eBook format, the most popular eBook format prior to the Kindle's introduction, was developed by a company called MobiPocket for use by their MobiReader software. MobiPocket used to charge a nominal fee for the MobiReader application, and another nominal fee for popular public domain eBooks like the Bible, the works of Shakespeare, Mark Twain, etc. The appeal of this, a decade ago, is that one could read books on various PDAs and computers. MobiPocket ended up being the largest publisher of eBooks, and was able to entice mainstream publishers to get on board by offering them protection against unauthorized copying, via DRM. MobiPocket also made their eBook creation software available for free to prospective publishers, so it costs almost nothing to create an eBook from the textual source. MobiPocket (the company) was purchased by Amazon a few years ago, by the way.
After thinking about this on and off, I now understand why Amazon decided not to support DRM .MOBI and went with a new DRM format, .AZW. (Interestingly enough, .AZW is almost identical to DRM .MOBI, and why not? After all, Amazon owns DRM .MOBI.)
Current DRM schemes do not account for selling and transferring ebooks. In fact, since it is impossible to tie a DRM .MOBI ebook to a particular reader (because users might get a new reader), it is effectively impossible to enforce DRM if the original purchaser is willing to provide the key to another person.
The Kindle, on the other hand, is a closed system. The Kindle's serial # is tied to the user on the Amazon website. Although, like MobiPocket, creating eBooks costs nothing, unlike MobiPocket the creation software is not downloaded to one's computer but instead resides on Amazon's servers (so they can control it fully). A record of all DRM ebooks purchased is also stored on Amazon, and associated with both the customer and the specific Kindle. Amazon could institute a firmware feature that would automatically verify each DRM ebook on the system with Amazon's server on a regular basis, and inform Amazon if a pirated file were found. Maybe they're doing that now. Who knows what data goes up to Amazon?
However, a closed system has advantages. Amazon could institute an ebook trade-in program, where you get partial credit for 'returning' a book to Amazon (removing it from your purchased book list), and they could enforce this by having the Kindle verify the 'ownership' of any .AZW book when you try to read it (by storing a copy of your purchased book list on your Kindle). Or, Amazon could facilitate 'selling' of used ebooks to other Kindle owners, by taking a bite of the 'selling' price for themselves and the publisher... call this the eBay model. The Kindle would certainly support this.
So, because Amazon can't guarantee that an individual is the owner of a particular DRM .MOBI ebook, it is perfectly understandable why they don't want the hassle and liability of supporting that format. And, because they control the Kindle, they could have all sorts of flexibility with .AZW ebooks... flexibility that is impossible with DRM .MOBI ebooks.
P.S.: Why have I written a lot about this device? Because I believe the Kindle will revolutionize the book industry, and it will also transform Amazon, the company, into what it originally promised to be back in 1995. Stay tuned for further thoughts on this device...
First, a little history. The .MOBI eBook format, the most popular eBook format prior to the Kindle's introduction, was developed by a company called MobiPocket for use by their MobiReader software. MobiPocket used to charge a nominal fee for the MobiReader application, and another nominal fee for popular public domain eBooks like the Bible, the works of Shakespeare, Mark Twain, etc. The appeal of this, a decade ago, is that one could read books on various PDAs and computers. MobiPocket ended up being the largest publisher of eBooks, and was able to entice mainstream publishers to get on board by offering them protection against unauthorized copying, via DRM. MobiPocket also made their eBook creation software available for free to prospective publishers, so it costs almost nothing to create an eBook from the textual source. MobiPocket (the company) was purchased by Amazon a few years ago, by the way.
After thinking about this on and off, I now understand why Amazon decided not to support DRM .MOBI and went with a new DRM format, .AZW. (Interestingly enough, .AZW is almost identical to DRM .MOBI, and why not? After all, Amazon owns DRM .MOBI.)
Current DRM schemes do not account for selling and transferring ebooks. In fact, since it is impossible to tie a DRM .MOBI ebook to a particular reader (because users might get a new reader), it is effectively impossible to enforce DRM if the original purchaser is willing to provide the key to another person.
The Kindle, on the other hand, is a closed system. The Kindle's serial # is tied to the user on the Amazon website. Although, like MobiPocket, creating eBooks costs nothing, unlike MobiPocket the creation software is not downloaded to one's computer but instead resides on Amazon's servers (so they can control it fully). A record of all DRM ebooks purchased is also stored on Amazon, and associated with both the customer and the specific Kindle. Amazon could institute a firmware feature that would automatically verify each DRM ebook on the system with Amazon's server on a regular basis, and inform Amazon if a pirated file were found. Maybe they're doing that now. Who knows what data goes up to Amazon?
However, a closed system has advantages. Amazon could institute an ebook trade-in program, where you get partial credit for 'returning' a book to Amazon (removing it from your purchased book list), and they could enforce this by having the Kindle verify the 'ownership' of any .AZW book when you try to read it (by storing a copy of your purchased book list on your Kindle). Or, Amazon could facilitate 'selling' of used ebooks to other Kindle owners, by taking a bite of the 'selling' price for themselves and the publisher... call this the eBay model. The Kindle would certainly support this.
So, because Amazon can't guarantee that an individual is the owner of a particular DRM .MOBI ebook, it is perfectly understandable why they don't want the hassle and liability of supporting that format. And, because they control the Kindle, they could have all sorts of flexibility with .AZW ebooks... flexibility that is impossible with DRM .MOBI ebooks.
P.S.: Why have I written a lot about this device? Because I believe the Kindle will revolutionize the book industry, and it will also transform Amazon, the company, into what it originally promised to be back in 1995. Stay tuned for further thoughts on this device...
Thursday, November 22, 2007
An Open Letter to Amazon About the Kindle
Dear Amazon Kindle Support:
I’ve purchased a Kindle after looking at a friend’s beta-test version, and think you guys really have a winner here, and I feel I can say this as someone who had spec’d out the ideal eBook, as a dream project, back in the late ‘80s at a large Redmond software company (the needed technology wasn’t available yet).
However, I do have a problem, as a customer, with the Kindle’s lack of support for DRM content downloaded from Mobipocket. After all, Amazon owns Mobipocket, and to not support purchased Mobipocket files while supporting open Mobipocket files seems weak.
I understand that, from a business point of view, Amazon wants to differentiate the Kindle and to raise the barriers against other content providers, but what Amazon is really doing is forcing me and other customers to buy two different electronic books. If I have to do that, then I’ll probably end up only buying the content I can use on both devices, and failing that I’ll end up buying only the content I can use on more than one device… which means I’ll eventually sell or abandon my Kindle and go to something like the iRex iLiad as soon as someone implements support for .AZW (the Kindle’s ‘native’ eBook format).
If you really want to kill off the Mobipocket format, then do so by only publishing new titles in .AZW, not .MOBI DRM, and then offering a conversion from DRM Mobipocket to .AZW. Amazon has the marketing clout to ensure that it can publish what it wants. But, really, does Amazon want to be in the hardware business? No. Amazon was founded to be in the book business, and the twelve years of building a tremendous infrastructure was forced upon it by the demands of the market and of the products it chose to sold. Everything else is just productizing what Amazon needed to build in the first place (web services, storefronts, etc.). If only books didn’t need to be printed… but people aren’t going to want to have to worry about the Tower of Babel (different formats for electronic books, and devices that purposely choose to exclude the most popular format for business reasons).
Amazon wants, no, needs to be in the virtual book business. Leading the transformation away from physical media, of any type, should be Amazon’s goal. The best way to do this is to remove impediments to customer adoption. Do this by offering free .MOBI to .AZW conversions for 90 days after a new owner gets a Kindle, and then charge a nominal fee thereafter. Then no one has a reason to buy any other eReader.
I guess Amazon has the data for it’s decision to leave current electronic book owners out in the cold (no support for rights-protected .MOBI files), but what does this really buy you? If you don't offer conversion to .AZW, someone will figure out how to provide DRM’d .AZW files even if you don’t publish the specifications, just as Real Networks found out how to produce iTune-compatible protected music. Far better to make a few cents for conversions than to watch your competitors start offering content for the Kindle that you won't get any money for.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Democrats! Shut Up! Europe! Grow Up!
Anne Applebaum has an article in Slate about how Iraq was/is a net loss for the United States:
So, here we are, almost five years later, with yet another crisis fomenting in the Middle East over a terrorist-sponsoring state that is developing WMDs, and even the critics of America admit that they do not wish to confront Iran. Hell's bells! Why on Earth should Iran change its course of action? What is the downside of their current direction? Can the Europeans not see that their very ambivalence is what is causing the crisis? And, that if they would just grow a pair and stand up, just once, to a totalitarian regime, then perhaps they could prevent yet another dictatorial miscalculation that "democracies are too weak and decadent to fight?"
Hitler started World War II because he truly believed that Britain and France lacked the will to oppose him. Oops. Kim Il Sung started the Korean War because he and Stalin believed that Truman lacked the will to oppose them. Oops. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait because he believed the US lacked the will to intervene. Twelve years later, he defied US and UN demands because he again believed that the US would not intervene because his bought-and-paid-for 'friends' would prevent UN approval of any attack. Oops yet again. Anyone else spot the "wars are often started by miscalculations" trend here?
I have to tell you; I think Iraq was worth the cost, and I further believe that history will agree with me in a very short time. September 11, 2001 was the culmination of several decades of escalating terrorist attacks on America... attacks with no consequences. The Bush Administration correctly analyzed the situation in the Middle East, recognizing that things weren't going to change unless we changed our response. That's a bad neighborhood, and people over there needed to realize that business as usual was over. If that meant invading a few countries, then so be it. Of course, our enemies doubted our resolve, having seen eight years of Clinton pusillanimity. We all knew their game plan: kill Americans violently and hold on until they give up and go home. But it didn't happen, despite the tremendous cost in blood and money, because we were uniquely blessed with a military, a president, and a majority of the American people, all of whom possessed the courage and resolve to see it through, and to ignore the naysayers. That resolve is what finally made the Iraqi people choose America. Osama bin Laden was right: Arabs always choose the strong horse. We showed the Middle East that, contrary to popular opinion, we are the strong horse, not Al Qaeda and its minions. If Clinton had done his job, and those who hated us believed this in 2001, then 9/11 wouldn't have happened.
We've won in Iraq. Now we need to finish the job, and that means confronting Iran instead of avoiding it. This is when the Rest of the World needs to grow up and get with the program. Europeans need to realize that Iran is a real threat, and that once Tehran has nukes the possibility of nuclear war increases dramatically. Iran sends all types of munitions to their Hamas and Hezbollah proxies for indiscriminate use against Israeli civilian targets. Does anyone really not think that a small nuke is off the table? Does anyone really think the US wants to go to war with Iran? Evidently, many Europeans are in a state of denial.
And whose fault is this really? Whose fault is it that the US and specifically the Bush Administration is seen as less than credible? I think that some Americans, who have attacked the motivations of the current president in their scorched-earth effort to regain political power by any means necessary, bear a good part of the blame. There's been way too much irresponsible politicking. After all, most of our enemies are merely repeating the Democrat Party talking points. This is why, once upon a time, political attacks stopped at the water's edge. Maybe, if a Democrat does win the presidency in 2008, they'll soon regret the bitter harvest that two terms of irresponsible political attacks have sown.
Though I don't especially want to perpetuate anyone's stereotypes about the mainstream media, I have to say that this optimism is totally unwarranted. Not because things aren't improving in Iraq—it seems they are, at least for the moment—but because the collateral damage inflicted by the war on America's relationships with the rest of the world is a lot deeper and broader than most Americans have yet realized. It isn't just that the Iraq war invigorated the anti-Americanism that has always been latent pretty much everywhere. Far worse is the fact that—however it all comes out in the end, however successful Iraqi democracy becomes a decade from now—our conduct of the war in Iraq has disillusioned our natural friends and supporters and thrown a lasting shadow over our military and political competence. However it all comes out, the price we've paid is too high.The price we paid isn't the almost 4,000 Americans who gave their lives in Iraq fighting Al Qaeda fanatics and Sunni intransigents. It's not the tens of thousands of wounded, some of whom are permanently disabled, and all whom have gone through hell. Nope... the price we've paid is the fact that no one likes us enough anymore to listen to us:
News flash: They weren't listening to us anyway! The folks that opposed us in 2003... folks like Hans Blix, Gehard Schroeder, Jacques Chirac... opposed us because they believed it was in their best interests to oppose us! Whether those interests revolved around money (as in keeping the Oil For Food cash coming), political ambition (as in using the US as a whipping boy to distract one's own voters away from a dismal political record), or strategic ambition (as in utilizing general angst over war as a club to beat the US with in the hopes of weakening America strategically so that we would no longer project power) is just additional grist for the mill.From the start, however, all negotiations between Iran and the "EU-3," as the group is known in diplomacy speak, have been haunted by Iraq. Certainly, there is no expert committee in existence that could successfully convince Europeans (or anyone) that Iran really does have nuclear weapons, or even that Iran intends to build them. So fresh are the memories of American claims about the extent of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and so vast, therefore, is the skepticism about any assessments of anybody's nuclear program, that even a report bearing a United Nations or European Union label would fail to convince, even if Iranian nukes were on display in downtown Tehran. All analysis coming out of the United States is, of course, automatically discounted.
So, here we are, almost five years later, with yet another crisis fomenting in the Middle East over a terrorist-sponsoring state that is developing WMDs, and even the critics of America admit that they do not wish to confront Iran. Hell's bells! Why on Earth should Iran change its course of action? What is the downside of their current direction? Can the Europeans not see that their very ambivalence is what is causing the crisis? And, that if they would just grow a pair and stand up, just once, to a totalitarian regime, then perhaps they could prevent yet another dictatorial miscalculation that "democracies are too weak and decadent to fight?"
Hitler started World War II because he truly believed that Britain and France lacked the will to oppose him. Oops. Kim Il Sung started the Korean War because he and Stalin believed that Truman lacked the will to oppose them. Oops. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait because he believed the US lacked the will to intervene. Twelve years later, he defied US and UN demands because he again believed that the US would not intervene because his bought-and-paid-for 'friends' would prevent UN approval of any attack. Oops yet again. Anyone else spot the "wars are often started by miscalculations" trend here?
I have to tell you; I think Iraq was worth the cost, and I further believe that history will agree with me in a very short time. September 11, 2001 was the culmination of several decades of escalating terrorist attacks on America... attacks with no consequences. The Bush Administration correctly analyzed the situation in the Middle East, recognizing that things weren't going to change unless we changed our response. That's a bad neighborhood, and people over there needed to realize that business as usual was over. If that meant invading a few countries, then so be it. Of course, our enemies doubted our resolve, having seen eight years of Clinton pusillanimity. We all knew their game plan: kill Americans violently and hold on until they give up and go home. But it didn't happen, despite the tremendous cost in blood and money, because we were uniquely blessed with a military, a president, and a majority of the American people, all of whom possessed the courage and resolve to see it through, and to ignore the naysayers. That resolve is what finally made the Iraqi people choose America. Osama bin Laden was right: Arabs always choose the strong horse. We showed the Middle East that, contrary to popular opinion, we are the strong horse, not Al Qaeda and its minions. If Clinton had done his job, and those who hated us believed this in 2001, then 9/11 wouldn't have happened.
We've won in Iraq. Now we need to finish the job, and that means confronting Iran instead of avoiding it. This is when the Rest of the World needs to grow up and get with the program. Europeans need to realize that Iran is a real threat, and that once Tehran has nukes the possibility of nuclear war increases dramatically. Iran sends all types of munitions to their Hamas and Hezbollah proxies for indiscriminate use against Israeli civilian targets. Does anyone really not think that a small nuke is off the table? Does anyone really think the US wants to go to war with Iran? Evidently, many Europeans are in a state of denial.
And whose fault is this really? Whose fault is it that the US and specifically the Bush Administration is seen as less than credible? I think that some Americans, who have attacked the motivations of the current president in their scorched-earth effort to regain political power by any means necessary, bear a good part of the blame. There's been way too much irresponsible politicking. After all, most of our enemies are merely repeating the Democrat Party talking points. This is why, once upon a time, political attacks stopped at the water's edge. Maybe, if a Democrat does win the presidency in 2008, they'll soon regret the bitter harvest that two terms of irresponsible political attacks have sown.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
