the SNOB
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Suedetenland Cougars for Clinton
The Politico's Jim VanDeHei (cap?) and Mike Allen tried their best yesterday to drive a garlic-rubbed silver railroad spike through Hillary's Stalingrad-like campaign. Borrowing from such journalistic landmarks as "When it Comes to Building Intimacy, Men Prefer Sex to Talking, study shows," their argument goes, "the candidate with the most votes wins." Roughly speaking:
1. Hillary can't pass Obama in pledged delegates
2. Obama can't win enough pledges to clinch the nomination
3. Superdelegates won't vote against Obama because it would decimate black turnout
4. Therefore, no matter how good Hillary's arguments for the nomination are, she can't win
The only good thing I can say for it is that it perfectly encapsulates the present moment's everybody-knows-that unquestioned assertion that severe depression of black turnout is the axis on which all of these gears turn. My reading as a fairly dispassionate observer (I dislike both candidates roughly equally, though for very different reasons) is that Clinton's supporters--particularly among older white women--are going to be just as ready to file for divorce should the unthinkable (a Clinton losing) happen.
Exhibit A.
In reading comments on Clinton-leaning sites, what floats to the surface are the middle-aged and older women who project all the setbacks and challenges of their own lives onto Hillary's campaign, in whose post-racial gaze Obama is just another damn man running for president. For their Gen-X and younger sisters and daughters, who entered the game as many of the great battlefields of feminism were being cleared of bodies, there isn't the same sense of "Hillary now or a woman president never!"
Had Chelsea been something other than who she is, i.e., a pitch-perfect example of an upper-middle class young woman climbing into the upper branches of the tree before shifting off into nanny-assisted pseudo-professional domesticity, perhaps she could have provided a symbol to link the generations. But when you look at her campaigning with her mom, you wonder if she feels like the Microsoft guy in the Apple ads. I can't think of anything more miserable than being a Hillary supporter in your 20s right now--it's like getting an invite to the greatest party in the universe and having to leave town to go to some obscure relative's wedding. Some day you're going to wake up and feel like Joni Mitchell, whose managers kept her away from Woodstock so she'd be ready for the Dick Cavett show. But I digress.
Obama could still put a fork in Hillary by winning in Pennsylvania. Likewise, Bush could announce that Osama Bin Laden, I'l Kim Jong, Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin, and the Dalai Lama will all join him at a summit meeting in Orlando next month. They are about equally likely. As it will likely stand, the gap between the two in pledged delegates will represent no more than five percent, assuming that no re-vote occurs in Florida or Michigan, which, along with Pennsylvania and Ohio, arguably represent the axis on which the general election will most likely turn.
How these two states might have voted had an actual election been held is completely unknown. What is for certain is that because they offered a believable win for Hillary, they now provide an Italia Irredente for her supporters. "Let Florida and Michigan vote, and Hillary would take the pledged delegate lead," the story goes. Obama's opposition to holding such a revote is a critical concession to necessity because it provides a basis to tar him as being just as bad at smoke-filled politicking as Hillary come Denver. It is going to be a long, hard summer for the Democrats. ¶ 2:16 PM 0 Comments
The Politico's Jim VanDeHei (cap?) and Mike Allen tried their best yesterday to drive a garlic-rubbed silver railroad spike through Hillary's Stalingrad-like campaign. Borrowing from such journalistic landmarks as "When it Comes to Building Intimacy, Men Prefer Sex to Talking, study shows," their argument goes, "the candidate with the most votes wins." Roughly speaking:
1. Hillary can't pass Obama in pledged delegates
2. Obama can't win enough pledges to clinch the nomination
3. Superdelegates won't vote against Obama because it would decimate black turnout
4. Therefore, no matter how good Hillary's arguments for the nomination are, she can't win
The only good thing I can say for it is that it perfectly encapsulates the present moment's everybody-knows-that unquestioned assertion that severe depression of black turnout is the axis on which all of these gears turn. My reading as a fairly dispassionate observer (I dislike both candidates roughly equally, though for very different reasons) is that Clinton's supporters--particularly among older white women--are going to be just as ready to file for divorce should the unthinkable (a Clinton losing) happen.
Exhibit A.
In reading comments on Clinton-leaning sites, what floats to the surface are the middle-aged and older women who project all the setbacks and challenges of their own lives onto Hillary's campaign, in whose post-racial gaze Obama is just another damn man running for president. For their Gen-X and younger sisters and daughters, who entered the game as many of the great battlefields of feminism were being cleared of bodies, there isn't the same sense of "Hillary now or a woman president never!"
Had Chelsea been something other than who she is, i.e., a pitch-perfect example of an upper-middle class young woman climbing into the upper branches of the tree before shifting off into nanny-assisted pseudo-professional domesticity, perhaps she could have provided a symbol to link the generations. But when you look at her campaigning with her mom, you wonder if she feels like the Microsoft guy in the Apple ads. I can't think of anything more miserable than being a Hillary supporter in your 20s right now--it's like getting an invite to the greatest party in the universe and having to leave town to go to some obscure relative's wedding. Some day you're going to wake up and feel like Joni Mitchell, whose managers kept her away from Woodstock so she'd be ready for the Dick Cavett show. But I digress.
Obama could still put a fork in Hillary by winning in Pennsylvania. Likewise, Bush could announce that Osama Bin Laden, I'l Kim Jong, Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin, and the Dalai Lama will all join him at a summit meeting in Orlando next month. They are about equally likely. As it will likely stand, the gap between the two in pledged delegates will represent no more than five percent, assuming that no re-vote occurs in Florida or Michigan, which, along with Pennsylvania and Ohio, arguably represent the axis on which the general election will most likely turn.
How these two states might have voted had an actual election been held is completely unknown. What is for certain is that because they offered a believable win for Hillary, they now provide an Italia Irredente for her supporters. "Let Florida and Michigan vote, and Hillary would take the pledged delegate lead," the story goes. Obama's opposition to holding such a revote is a critical concession to necessity because it provides a basis to tar him as being just as bad at smoke-filled politicking as Hillary come Denver. It is going to be a long, hard summer for the Democrats. ¶ 2:16 PM 0 Comments
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Yes You Can
Barack Obama says he could no more disown Jeremiah Wright than he could disown his own grandmother.
Horsefeathers. Casting off old friends who aren't quite cut out for the Big Time is precisely what presidents can and should do. Two of the greatest debacles of the current administration were strongly enabled by Bush's failure to put Michael Brown and Donald Rumsfeld to the knife when it first became obvious they were losing control of the ball.
Obama's tacit endorsement of Wright also does a grave disservice to the thousands of black ministers who manage to preach empowerment and against injustice without spouting batshit-crazy theories about the origin of AIDS and whether the CIA invented crack to keep the black man down. And if you don't think that the white voters of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida approach race relations with the same mentality as Cantabrigians, then you'll quickly realize why this stuff could be electoral poison in November. ¶ 11:13 AM 1 Comments
Barack Obama says he could no more disown Jeremiah Wright than he could disown his own grandmother.
Horsefeathers. Casting off old friends who aren't quite cut out for the Big Time is precisely what presidents can and should do. Two of the greatest debacles of the current administration were strongly enabled by Bush's failure to put Michael Brown and Donald Rumsfeld to the knife when it first became obvious they were losing control of the ball.
Obama's tacit endorsement of Wright also does a grave disservice to the thousands of black ministers who manage to preach empowerment and against injustice without spouting batshit-crazy theories about the origin of AIDS and whether the CIA invented crack to keep the black man down. And if you don't think that the white voters of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida approach race relations with the same mentality as Cantabrigians, then you'll quickly realize why this stuff could be electoral poison in November. ¶ 11:13 AM 1 Comments
DiMasi Seeing Green
It should be enough for Sal DiMasi to oppose the governor's casino plan, which is--on its very best day--nothing more than a regressive tax increase. But opposing a bad idea is never enough, so the Speaker has to propose creating a $50m kitty to fund alt-energy projects to prove he's doing something.
Given that Massachusetts is absolutely rotten with venture capital firms, tier-one research universities, and highly-skilled workers, creating a fund of this kind is beyond unnecessary. We don't have to give investors, employees, or businesses a reason to come to Massachusetts. What we have to do is avoid giving them reasons to leave. This, unfortunately, is a lot less fun and exciting than appropriating money for pet causes.
And therein lies another reason why, even if it's "just 50 million," a fund like this is a bad idea. Venture investors are lined up around the block of any remotely-promising technology with near- to mid-term commercialization potential, and our local universities are hardly lacking in funds. Harvard, MIT, and BU all have endowments more than capable of supporting dramatic increases in funding of basic research. Why not pass a law requiring universities to spend a progressive percentage of their endowments each year in order to maintain their tax-exempt status? Now that would be a fun pissing match. ¶ 8:46 AM 0 Comments
It should be enough for Sal DiMasi to oppose the governor's casino plan, which is--on its very best day--nothing more than a regressive tax increase. But opposing a bad idea is never enough, so the Speaker has to propose creating a $50m kitty to fund alt-energy projects to prove he's doing something.
Given that Massachusetts is absolutely rotten with venture capital firms, tier-one research universities, and highly-skilled workers, creating a fund of this kind is beyond unnecessary. We don't have to give investors, employees, or businesses a reason to come to Massachusetts. What we have to do is avoid giving them reasons to leave. This, unfortunately, is a lot less fun and exciting than appropriating money for pet causes.
And therein lies another reason why, even if it's "just 50 million," a fund like this is a bad idea. Venture investors are lined up around the block of any remotely-promising technology with near- to mid-term commercialization potential, and our local universities are hardly lacking in funds. Harvard, MIT, and BU all have endowments more than capable of supporting dramatic increases in funding of basic research. Why not pass a law requiring universities to spend a progressive percentage of their endowments each year in order to maintain their tax-exempt status? Now that would be a fun pissing match. ¶ 8:46 AM 0 Comments
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Undoing Google
It is when companies look least vulnerable that they are in the greatest danger. This story on the upcoming Google "Android" mobile phone hints at why I think the pivotal company of the 00s is headed for a major fall. In short, Google's product manager thinks their phone will overtake the iPhone because it has a kickass SDK.
Hey--you over there--wake up!
Google is one of the most remarkably clueless companies around when it comes to consumer marketing, but the cash cow that is AdWords has successfully distracted people from this for five years. Worse-than-expected earnings (a term never before used in the same sentence as Google) last quarter have already driven their stock ~40% off its peak. I think there's another 20-30% to go before it's done.
First, Google relies mostly on click-throughs for its advertising revenue, and we've never seen what happens to these in a recession. If buyers know they don't have money to spend, will they click? And even if they do, will advertisers continue to spend as heavily? These forces could put enormous pressure on earnings growth.
Second, Google faces a challenge in recruiting and retention if their stock price catches the flu. In many cases their competition is not just Microsoft or Yahoo, but a gazillion Valley startups, any of which could be "the next Google." Since their IPO, Google has enjoyed the ability to offer employees the best of both worlds--a solid salary, plus the sort of windfall normally found only in (much less secure) pre-IPO businesses.
The days of VC-backed startups paying @#$! salaries are receding. Cost of living around Boston, the Bay Area, and other major startup hubs is such that very few people can live reasonably well on much less than a market-level salary. Nor do I think it likely that we will see a collapse in deals the way we did post-2001. Back then the booming real estate market offered a familiar and rewarding alternative, but with stocks, bonds, and real estate all in the crapper for the foreseeable future, the wealthy investors who fund the VC funds have no easy alternatives. Anyway, the risk to Google here is not simply that payrolls will go up--they will--but more that they will be left out of the bidding entirely.
Last, there is still a general impression that Google can continue to grow revenues at 50% per year by moving into new industries virtually at will. If they roll out a delicious Google Phone with free ad-supported calling and get millions of people on it in short order, well, I'll gladly eat this post because that's just the sort of thing that makes dull rich people willing to invest their grandfather's hard-earned money in technology businesses rather than rental apartments on Comm Ave. But I don't think that's likely.
In fact, Google hasn't demonstrated this sort of green-field innovation capability in some time--not since AdWords itself, IMHO. Look beneath the surface of most of their second- and third-generation products, and you find acquisitions. There's nothing wrong with this--big companies always grow and innovate by acquisition, but Google has in the past had a halo of being not just rich, but also brilliant, which is much rarer. Perceptions play a huge role in setting prices. If tomorrow morning we woke to pictures of Sunnis and Shias in the streets of Baghdad holding hands and singing kumbaya, the price of oil would drop $15 in minutes. People put a premium on Google because they think that more remarkable things are going to happen. ¶ 9:02 AM 1 Comments
It is when companies look least vulnerable that they are in the greatest danger. This story on the upcoming Google "Android" mobile phone hints at why I think the pivotal company of the 00s is headed for a major fall. In short, Google's product manager thinks their phone will overtake the iPhone because it has a kickass SDK.
Hey--you over there--wake up!
Google is one of the most remarkably clueless companies around when it comes to consumer marketing, but the cash cow that is AdWords has successfully distracted people from this for five years. Worse-than-expected earnings (a term never before used in the same sentence as Google) last quarter have already driven their stock ~40% off its peak. I think there's another 20-30% to go before it's done.
First, Google relies mostly on click-throughs for its advertising revenue, and we've never seen what happens to these in a recession. If buyers know they don't have money to spend, will they click? And even if they do, will advertisers continue to spend as heavily? These forces could put enormous pressure on earnings growth.
Second, Google faces a challenge in recruiting and retention if their stock price catches the flu. In many cases their competition is not just Microsoft or Yahoo, but a gazillion Valley startups, any of which could be "the next Google." Since their IPO, Google has enjoyed the ability to offer employees the best of both worlds--a solid salary, plus the sort of windfall normally found only in (much less secure) pre-IPO businesses.
The days of VC-backed startups paying @#$! salaries are receding. Cost of living around Boston, the Bay Area, and other major startup hubs is such that very few people can live reasonably well on much less than a market-level salary. Nor do I think it likely that we will see a collapse in deals the way we did post-2001. Back then the booming real estate market offered a familiar and rewarding alternative, but with stocks, bonds, and real estate all in the crapper for the foreseeable future, the wealthy investors who fund the VC funds have no easy alternatives. Anyway, the risk to Google here is not simply that payrolls will go up--they will--but more that they will be left out of the bidding entirely.
Last, there is still a general impression that Google can continue to grow revenues at 50% per year by moving into new industries virtually at will. If they roll out a delicious Google Phone with free ad-supported calling and get millions of people on it in short order, well, I'll gladly eat this post because that's just the sort of thing that makes dull rich people willing to invest their grandfather's hard-earned money in technology businesses rather than rental apartments on Comm Ave. But I don't think that's likely.
In fact, Google hasn't demonstrated this sort of green-field innovation capability in some time--not since AdWords itself, IMHO. Look beneath the surface of most of their second- and third-generation products, and you find acquisitions. There's nothing wrong with this--big companies always grow and innovate by acquisition, but Google has in the past had a halo of being not just rich, but also brilliant, which is much rarer. Perceptions play a huge role in setting prices. If tomorrow morning we woke to pictures of Sunnis and Shias in the streets of Baghdad holding hands and singing kumbaya, the price of oil would drop $15 in minutes. People put a premium on Google because they think that more remarkable things are going to happen. ¶ 9:02 AM 1 Comments
