Sorry for the delayed reaction but I wanted to share some thoughts about my encounter with THE NEXT VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, Barack Obama. Okay look, he absolutely has a chance of winning the Democratic nomination. I'm a Friend of B.O.
Last week I was invited to a fundraiser for Barack at the Harvard Club in midtown. I broked out the houndstooth and ascot and harrumphed my way past the doorman (there was no metal detector or special security; maybe they do that sort of thing at the CORNELL Club, but not here). The event was sponsored by certain partners at Lehman Brothers and the Nixon Peabody law firm. Sponsors were expected to donate $2,300. actually, I believe attendees were as well. My donation fell just short.
I looked forward to hearing Obama in person, but I also wanted the experience of seeing a presidential candidate in action on the campaign trail, in an intimate setting. Hot hors d'ouvres would be a bonus but not the sine qua non for my being there. Which is a good thing, because $2,300 got you one open bar for over 100 people and some cut up veggies. Conversely, every night is Taco Night on the Mitt Romney campaign trail. That's the GOP for you though.
Obama entered the room through a rear entrance with almost zero fanfare. He just sort of appeared and people started to mill about hm. He wore his standard blue blazer, slacks and cream colored dress shirt, and no tie in a room full of pinstripes and Windsor knots. I couldn't stop looking at his shirt. Obama's shirts are custom-tailored so that the buttons are not equidistant. I think they want to go with the open collar but not expose too much neck area, without making him look like Nehru or Ed Grimley. The button pattern looks like this: [not sure the autoformatting is going to do this justice]
^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
O
O
O
O
Obama has very purple, A-Rod lips in person. His hands were surprisingly soft when I met him. I don't like to make a big scene when I meet famous people, but I did prepare what I was going to say so I didn't just stand there like a halfwit. "Senator, it is an honor to meet you and I wish you luck in the upcoming year." He fixed his gaze on me and asked....
"what's your name?"
"Joshua Kranz"
"Thank you Joshua"
He used the same line on everyone: "What's your name?", no matter how elaborate their greeting. Just whatsyourname and move on. Frankly, he looked exhausted.
Once everyone in the crowd had gotten their piece of flesh, it was time for him to speak. I stood no more than 20 feet from the lectern. He gave a fairly canned but natural-sounding introduction about who he is and why he's running. His comments were savvy: "most of you are probably here because you want to know 'who is this Obama guy running for President?'" and "I think that at this point in American history, maybe time inside the Beltway is the liability, not lack thereof." [I'm paraphrasing the latter comment]
Obama offered his top priorities if he's elected: 1. get out of Iraq 2. universal health care and improved education 3. Casual Friday for all branches of goverment, including Supreme Court. Maybe the topics were predictable, but Obama presented them mostly with erudition and what sounded like honesty.
He still seemed tired and more than once paused in mid-sentence to collect his thoughts, but he was effective and showed command of his facts. He talked about his early career in public service, helping the disadvantaged as a civil rights attorney in Illinois. He talked about the inequality of children without health care, single moms who can't afford a doctor visit. All the while his voice carried him. Mellifluous. Smooth. Commanding. What a great voice. Obama isn't a crowd-pleasing charmer like Clinton or, in his own, way Dubya. But he is charismatic by dint of his presence and command of his material. He tells jokes but he comes off a very serious person.
There was a Q&A session. International relations again - he talked about how the next President has the opportunity to go to foreign leaders and say "it's a new day, let's talk about working together and sharing accountability." Most interesting was his response to a question about solving the budget deficit. "Well, the first thing we are going to do is get out of the war." Then he said "and we're probably going to have to repeal some of those tax cuts, which everyone in this room has benefited from." [He must have thought I had already left] There were some murmurs after that comment. To me this was his most impressive moment of the evening. To walk into a room full of Wall Street types who just gave you a load of cash and tell them they're going to have some new taxes if he's elected - that showed me something.
One answer I didn't like as much was in response to how he differs from Hillary. He boiled it down to one point: Hillary voted for Iraq, and Barack didn't. He cited a letter on his website that he says was written at the war's outset, in which he opposes the aggression from Day One. I respect that he took that position and have no reason to doubt it (please don't tell me he wrote multiple letters that day). And I have always been dismayed that Senate Democrats voted to authorize the potential use of force without properly investigating or controlling Bush, and they did it because they didn't want to be caught not on the bandwagon if we sailed into a quickly democratized Baghdad. Those votes lacked a conscience. But who is to say that if Obama had been a senator in 2003, he would have done any differently? I don't fault Obama for trying to make the comparison so cut and dry, but I find it a little disingenuous.
Then a Lehman Brother guy asked him about capital gains taxes, and was obnoxiously following up, challenging Obama, asking of the single mom who had the baby "well how did she have the baby in the first place?" Obama kept his cool, did not get self-righteous, just stuck to the facts and message. Interesting exchange. He left almost immediately thereafter, also to little fanfare.
I think Barack Obama is charismatic, but he presents himself with a little more arrogance than Bill Clinton or other charmers. I wonder if he can turn on a different kind of charm when he's dealing with Middle America, show a more engaging side. In the barbecue test (the winning candidate is always the guy more people would want to invite to a barbecue) he trails Edwards and McCain and maybe even Romney and Giuliani, but he's still ahead of Hillary (she's still making the potato salad in the kitchen).
Obama is an ambitious, confident guy. He sets the bar very high for himself and you can tell he is hard-working and diligent. He didn't convince me to vote for him but he didn't dissuade me either. I liked the honesty with which he answered certain questions, but he's already come under fire for comments about Israel and other black leaders. I wonder if his sense of candor will prove his downfall.
May 11, 2007
May 03, 2007
The Next President of the World Bank: Wolfman Jack
May 3, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Wolfowitz?s Big Mistake
By DAVID BROOKS
Let me offer some advice.
Let?s say you?re a Republican appointed to an important job in Washington.
You?ll probably find that 90 percent of the people who work in your agency are Democrats, as are 90 percent of the media types who cover you and 90 percent of the academics who comment on your work.
But here?s the thing to remember: There are Democrats, and then there are Democrats. A quarter of the Democrats you?ll work with are partisans. They believe the rantings of the agitprop pundits, and they?ll never be open-minded toward you. But the other three-quarters are honorable, intelligent people. If you treat these people with respect, and find places where you can work together, they will teach you things and make you more effective. If you treat them the way you treat the partisans, they?ll turn into partisans and destroy you.
The choice seems pretty obvious, yet Republican after Republican mucks this up.
Which brings us to the case of Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank.
Wolfowitz came to the bank with the heavy baggage of Iraq. Nonetheless, most of the (left-leaning) employees were open to him, and even saw ways his background could help him solve the bank?s problems. Furthermore, you have to remember that the bank is staffed by people who are criticized from all directions and are desperate for approval and support.
Wolfowitz had an opportunity to be their champion, but he forfeited that opportunity by being aloof. As David E. Sanger and Steven R. Weisman of The Times have detailed, he entered a treacherous swirl of political, institutional and personal currents and navigated them poorly. Having failed to woo the open-minded people at the bank, it was inevitable they?d be out to get him.
Wolfowitz now argues that the scandal involving his girlfriend?s pay raise is ?plainly bogus.? He tried to recuse himself from her case but was forbidden by the ethics committee. Moreover, last year the committee looked into the general arrangements he?d made for her and concluded ?after careful review? that the allegations ?do not appear to pose ethical issues appropriate for further consideration by the Committee.?
Wolfowitz has a point. The conflict of interest charge is out of proportion to the hubbub. But scandals are like that ? they are never about what they purport to be about. The Clarence Thomas scandal wasn?t about a hair on a soda can. The Larry Summers scandal wasn?t about comments at a conference. Most scandals are pretexts for members of an establishment to destroy people they don?t like.
In most scandals, people adjust their standards of rectitude, depending on whether they support or oppose the person at issue. The subject?s enemies whip themselves into a fever of theatrical outrage, and the subject?s defenders summon up fits of indignation at the lies of the accusers. Scandals are playgrounds for partisans, and everybody else gets to play the role of the junior high school bully, ganging up on whoever seems weakest and most alone.
The Wolfowitz scandal is no exception. People who never called for Kofi Annan to resign amid the $12.8 billion oil-for-food scandal are calling for Wolfowitz?s head over a $60,000 raise. Employees at an institution that, according to one report, wasted $300 million last year, and where roughly 1,000 people make $175,000 to $200,000 a year, are suddenly outraged at lavish spending.
Editorials and statements by critics around the world are carefully crafted to avoid mentioning any of the exculpatory evidence on Wolfowitz?s side.
There has indeed been an explosion of Machiavellian posturing. But the core reality is the context Wolfowitz allowed to develop. He let potential allies turn into enemies.
The fact is, you go into politics with the establishment you have, not the establishment you wish you had. For Republicans, this is an establishment that is initially suspicious, but is filled with human beings who can be worked with.
They need to feel respected. They need to be consulted on things they know a lot about. If they feel disrespected, they?ll cut you no slack, and a small misstep could be career-ending. They will make it impossible for you to do your job.
This has happened to dozens of Republicans (and unpopular Democrats), and it is happening to Wolfowitz. And the only question is when will these appointees start learning the simple rules of effective democratic leadership?
"Kranz, Joshua"
I continue to ask: how does this guy get a column in NYT? It's not that he's a conservative. It?s that his arguments are consistently shallow.
- first of all, I'd love to know how Brooks is such an authority
when it comes to the hearts and minds of World Bank employees, many of
whom might care more about their homeland's political arena more than
Washington D.C.'s. I don't know if that's true but I doubt Brooks did a
lot of extensive investigation and interviewing before writing this
column.
- I can't comment on the exculpatory evidence Brooks cites. If
accurate, I agree that the headlines could have captured a fairer picture
of the situation by including this information.
- However, as Dad has pointed out what really set off World Bank
employees is Wolfowitz's handling of the matter, claiming he had no
involvement in the appointment. I see no difference between castigating
Wolfowitz for this and wanting to impeach Bill Clinton for lying under
oath during a bogus, politically driven investigation by Ken Starr.
Brooks is careful to cite Clarence Thomas and Larry Summers instead as
people who were tripped up for the wrong reason. The Clinton omission is
glaring, in my opinion, given the point he is trying to make.
- About Clarence Thomas: he benefited from the Anita Hill
scandal. Once Hill's allegations turned out to be less than damning, he
was appointed. If the Committee had simply stuck to the intended process
they would have concluded that Thomas was unqualified to serve on the
Court. But his lack of qualifications never came to the foreground.
- I don't have enough knowledge of the Kofi Annan scandal to
opine whether the comparison is fair. However, citing how much World Bank
employees make, throwing around a "waste" dollar figure and accusing the
people who want Wolfowitz out of hypocrisy - again, Brooks is burying his
head in the sand. It's the way Wolfowitz lied about what went on with the
appointment and his unapologetic, confrontational attitude in the
aftermath. I just can't believe that Brooks, with a straight face, can a)
equate World Bank employees with Democrats and b) suggest that Democrats
are the ones who are keen on using pretexts to depose authority figures.
Outrageous.
- I can't argue with Brooks's point that leaders who treat their corps with
disdain often suffer the consequences for their arrogance. But that message is contaminated by Brooks's partisanship.
"Kranz Frederick"
David Brooks is pathetic and his article shows how little he knows about the World Bank. He mixes half-baked truths with preconceived ideas and some sort of cockamamy ideology. It's not even worth committing on his piece.
At one point, not too long ago, Wolfensohn (not Wolfowitz) hired Nicholas Stern, a world-class, widely respected British economist, to be the Bank's Chief Economist. A great catch! However, his brother Richard Stern was VP of Human Resources at that time, and according to Bank rules, two close relatives may not serve in areas where their work might bring them into contact with each other.
In this case, they would both report to the President as senior executives.
There were immediate protests from the staff, because this long-standing rule had made life difficult for some of the staff whose spouses also worked for the Bank and were in line for promotions but unable to make the necessary moves.
Wolfensohn never made an apology or tried to explain his decision to anybody.
Within a month, Richard Stern announced that he had accepted another position and was leaving the Bank. End of story - end of conflicts of interest - end of protests.
This is the difference between an accomplished leader (who was not universally liked and had many personality flaws) and a wimp and loser who is left with no dignity or respect.
I hope this nightmare ends next week. Otherwise, the damage to the Bank's reputation will become devastating.
Op-Ed Columnist
Wolfowitz?s Big Mistake
By DAVID BROOKS
Let me offer some advice.
Let?s say you?re a Republican appointed to an important job in Washington.
You?ll probably find that 90 percent of the people who work in your agency are Democrats, as are 90 percent of the media types who cover you and 90 percent of the academics who comment on your work.
But here?s the thing to remember: There are Democrats, and then there are Democrats. A quarter of the Democrats you?ll work with are partisans. They believe the rantings of the agitprop pundits, and they?ll never be open-minded toward you. But the other three-quarters are honorable, intelligent people. If you treat these people with respect, and find places where you can work together, they will teach you things and make you more effective. If you treat them the way you treat the partisans, they?ll turn into partisans and destroy you.
The choice seems pretty obvious, yet Republican after Republican mucks this up.
Which brings us to the case of Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank.
Wolfowitz came to the bank with the heavy baggage of Iraq. Nonetheless, most of the (left-leaning) employees were open to him, and even saw ways his background could help him solve the bank?s problems. Furthermore, you have to remember that the bank is staffed by people who are criticized from all directions and are desperate for approval and support.
Wolfowitz had an opportunity to be their champion, but he forfeited that opportunity by being aloof. As David E. Sanger and Steven R. Weisman of The Times have detailed, he entered a treacherous swirl of political, institutional and personal currents and navigated them poorly. Having failed to woo the open-minded people at the bank, it was inevitable they?d be out to get him.
Wolfowitz now argues that the scandal involving his girlfriend?s pay raise is ?plainly bogus.? He tried to recuse himself from her case but was forbidden by the ethics committee. Moreover, last year the committee looked into the general arrangements he?d made for her and concluded ?after careful review? that the allegations ?do not appear to pose ethical issues appropriate for further consideration by the Committee.?
Wolfowitz has a point. The conflict of interest charge is out of proportion to the hubbub. But scandals are like that ? they are never about what they purport to be about. The Clarence Thomas scandal wasn?t about a hair on a soda can. The Larry Summers scandal wasn?t about comments at a conference. Most scandals are pretexts for members of an establishment to destroy people they don?t like.
In most scandals, people adjust their standards of rectitude, depending on whether they support or oppose the person at issue. The subject?s enemies whip themselves into a fever of theatrical outrage, and the subject?s defenders summon up fits of indignation at the lies of the accusers. Scandals are playgrounds for partisans, and everybody else gets to play the role of the junior high school bully, ganging up on whoever seems weakest and most alone.
The Wolfowitz scandal is no exception. People who never called for Kofi Annan to resign amid the $12.8 billion oil-for-food scandal are calling for Wolfowitz?s head over a $60,000 raise. Employees at an institution that, according to one report, wasted $300 million last year, and where roughly 1,000 people make $175,000 to $200,000 a year, are suddenly outraged at lavish spending.
Editorials and statements by critics around the world are carefully crafted to avoid mentioning any of the exculpatory evidence on Wolfowitz?s side.
There has indeed been an explosion of Machiavellian posturing. But the core reality is the context Wolfowitz allowed to develop. He let potential allies turn into enemies.
The fact is, you go into politics with the establishment you have, not the establishment you wish you had. For Republicans, this is an establishment that is initially suspicious, but is filled with human beings who can be worked with.
They need to feel respected. They need to be consulted on things they know a lot about. If they feel disrespected, they?ll cut you no slack, and a small misstep could be career-ending. They will make it impossible for you to do your job.
This has happened to dozens of Republicans (and unpopular Democrats), and it is happening to Wolfowitz. And the only question is when will these appointees start learning the simple rules of effective democratic leadership?
"Kranz, Joshua"
I continue to ask: how does this guy get a column in NYT? It's not that he's a conservative. It?s that his arguments are consistently shallow.
- first of all, I'd love to know how Brooks is such an authority
when it comes to the hearts and minds of World Bank employees, many of
whom might care more about their homeland's political arena more than
Washington D.C.'s. I don't know if that's true but I doubt Brooks did a
lot of extensive investigation and interviewing before writing this
column.
- I can't comment on the exculpatory evidence Brooks cites. If
accurate, I agree that the headlines could have captured a fairer picture
of the situation by including this information.
- However, as Dad has pointed out what really set off World Bank
employees is Wolfowitz's handling of the matter, claiming he had no
involvement in the appointment. I see no difference between castigating
Wolfowitz for this and wanting to impeach Bill Clinton for lying under
oath during a bogus, politically driven investigation by Ken Starr.
Brooks is careful to cite Clarence Thomas and Larry Summers instead as
people who were tripped up for the wrong reason. The Clinton omission is
glaring, in my opinion, given the point he is trying to make.
- About Clarence Thomas: he benefited from the Anita Hill
scandal. Once Hill's allegations turned out to be less than damning, he
was appointed. If the Committee had simply stuck to the intended process
they would have concluded that Thomas was unqualified to serve on the
Court. But his lack of qualifications never came to the foreground.
- I don't have enough knowledge of the Kofi Annan scandal to
opine whether the comparison is fair. However, citing how much World Bank
employees make, throwing around a "waste" dollar figure and accusing the
people who want Wolfowitz out of hypocrisy - again, Brooks is burying his
head in the sand. It's the way Wolfowitz lied about what went on with the
appointment and his unapologetic, confrontational attitude in the
aftermath. I just can't believe that Brooks, with a straight face, can a)
equate World Bank employees with Democrats and b) suggest that Democrats
are the ones who are keen on using pretexts to depose authority figures.
Outrageous.
- I can't argue with Brooks's point that leaders who treat their corps with
disdain often suffer the consequences for their arrogance. But that message is contaminated by Brooks's partisanship.
"Kranz Frederick"
David Brooks is pathetic and his article shows how little he knows about the World Bank. He mixes half-baked truths with preconceived ideas and some sort of cockamamy ideology. It's not even worth committing on his piece.
At one point, not too long ago, Wolfensohn (not Wolfowitz) hired Nicholas Stern, a world-class, widely respected British economist, to be the Bank's Chief Economist. A great catch! However, his brother Richard Stern was VP of Human Resources at that time, and according to Bank rules, two close relatives may not serve in areas where their work might bring them into contact with each other.
In this case, they would both report to the President as senior executives.
There were immediate protests from the staff, because this long-standing rule had made life difficult for some of the staff whose spouses also worked for the Bank and were in line for promotions but unable to make the necessary moves.
Wolfensohn never made an apology or tried to explain his decision to anybody.
Within a month, Richard Stern announced that he had accepted another position and was leaving the Bank. End of story - end of conflicts of interest - end of protests.
This is the difference between an accomplished leader (who was not universally liked and had many personality flaws) and a wimp and loser who is left with no dignity or respect.
I hope this nightmare ends next week. Otherwise, the damage to the Bank's reputation will become devastating.
April 27, 2007
Shrillary
Here's something from Karina:
Did you know that Hillary tried to join the Marines in the 70's?
https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20070402&s=crowley040207
Also, if one more commentator mentions the word "shrill" in the same sentence as "Hillary" I'm going to be sick - men are never tagged with this word.
Thanks for sending Karina. I mostly agree. "Shrill" is defined as a piercing, high-pitched sound. Since women generally have higher-pitched voices than men, it is not totally sexist that the term would be more often ascribed to women. What is sexist is tagging the husky-voiced junior Senator from the Empire State with that description. I wouldn't call Hillary's voice high-itched and piercing, would you? Midwestern, flat and grating, but not shrill.
There's no question the word shrill has become code for "uppity woman complaining about something while wearing tasteful and very expensive business wear." It marginalizes the message. Strangely, Republican women have avoided the shrill factor - Condi, Harriet Miers, Mamie Eisenhower. All are respected not only for what they say, but for the tone with which they say it.
Did you know that Hillary tried to join the Marines in the 70's?
https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20070402&s=crowley040207
Also, if one more commentator mentions the word "shrill" in the same sentence as "Hillary" I'm going to be sick - men are never tagged with this word.
Thanks for sending Karina. I mostly agree. "Shrill" is defined as a piercing, high-pitched sound. Since women generally have higher-pitched voices than men, it is not totally sexist that the term would be more often ascribed to women. What is sexist is tagging the husky-voiced junior Senator from the Empire State with that description. I wouldn't call Hillary's voice high-itched and piercing, would you? Midwestern, flat and grating, but not shrill.
There's no question the word shrill has become code for "uppity woman complaining about something while wearing tasteful and very expensive business wear." It marginalizes the message. Strangely, Republican women have avoided the shrill factor - Condi, Harriet Miers, Mamie Eisenhower. All are respected not only for what they say, but for the tone with which they say it.
April 16, 2007
April 13, 2007
FREE IMUS (kidding)
Don Imus - history of stupid, racist, offensive comments. I also always thought he just plain sucked. One could argue (and I think I will) the reason he's in trouble and people love Howard Stern is that Stern is often hilarious while Imus is about as funny as his colostomy bag (am I going to get fired for that comment?). The phrase "nappy headed ho's" carries little amusement or mirth in 2007 not because it's more offensive than things Stern, Dave Chappelle or a lot of other folks say, but because it's just stupid and ugly-sounding. That's my take on it.
So, should Imus have been fired? Put a different way, should Imus be singled out? Is that really accomplishing anything? Is it fair? I know he's a repeat offender but so are a lot of other folks, on radio and elsewhere. Would you have shredded your American Express card if they continued to advertise on Imus? Not me. Who cares? If you want to consistently rebuke this kind of material and fire the people who make offensive jokes, fine. So are we going to crack down across the board on racist/racial humor? How can you even possibly be consistent about it?
Why Imus? I think a lot of grandstanding and opportunism is going on.
Imus said a lot of terrible things along the way, so believe me I am not lamenting his downfall. Maybe it sets an example for others, keeps people on their toes, raises the level of discourse.
Any thoughts out there? I'd like to hear from our listeners. We're talkin' bout the First Amendement, bitches! (copyright Dave Chapelle)
So, should Imus have been fired? Put a different way, should Imus be singled out? Is that really accomplishing anything? Is it fair? I know he's a repeat offender but so are a lot of other folks, on radio and elsewhere. Would you have shredded your American Express card if they continued to advertise on Imus? Not me. Who cares? If you want to consistently rebuke this kind of material and fire the people who make offensive jokes, fine. So are we going to crack down across the board on racist/racial humor? How can you even possibly be consistent about it?
Why Imus? I think a lot of grandstanding and opportunism is going on.
Imus said a lot of terrible things along the way, so believe me I am not lamenting his downfall. Maybe it sets an example for others, keeps people on their toes, raises the level of discourse.
Any thoughts out there? I'd like to hear from our listeners. We're talkin' bout the First Amendement, bitches! (copyright Dave Chapelle)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)