Amazing isn't it? The Obama administration is pretty much in place and no where - no where - was anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's name even considered for Secretary of Defense! And how is it that anti-poverty activist Jeffery Sachs wasn't asked to run the Treasury Department? As for Noam Chomsky - I find it incredible that he was overlooked to run the state department. And how is it that Rep. Barbara Lee languishes in Congress instead of being sent to the U.N.? Or that President-elect Obama hasn't taken the time to throw his support behind Sen. Al Franken's election?
I'm joking of course. None of these quasi-academics or gadflies are even interested in joining the administration. But the point - that President-elect Obama is no liberal - is increasingly obvious. Obama is a politician and a good one; probably better than the much-praised Bill Clinton. Unlike Clinton, Obama's got almost everyone except his foresworn enemies in the tent.
How'd he do it? Well, unlike pretty much every other Democrat running for the White House, Obama drew and kept drawing a stark distinction between his campaign and the current White House. George W. Bush is so disliked that anything different was going to seem better. Obama was really different so he, by extension, had to be a whole lot better.
Many of the assumptions made about this administration - it's tilt to the left - were made not, I suspect on anything Obama said but more on a set of assumptions made about one policy stance. His opposition to the Iraq war was hailed as proof of his hard-core liberalism. As Vice President Al Gore made it clear he would not run and as the Democratic left looked long and hard for a suitable candidate, it settled on Obama because of his opposition to the war and the color of his skin.
Liberals used to love Obama because he wasn't Hillary Clinton, who voted in favor of the war and spoke no nonsense about pulling out tomorrow. Then, about three-quarters of the way through the campaign they started loving Obama 'cause he was against the war and is black. Even bobbles like Obama's support for a Bush Administration eavesdropping measure only created minor outrage which quickly died down.
Why? A black man, figured the lefties, will stand up for their values, representing and supporting any and all "Liberal" causes. This is a new version of what conservatives like to call the "soft bigotry of lowered expectations." Only, of course, the expectations in the minds of the hard-core left aren't "lower" they're "higher" as in morally superior.
So much of the campaign against that ballot initiative assumed that Obama's supporters - whites, gays, minorities - all thought the same on all issues and would, of course, vote against the same-sex marriage ban. Democratic turn-out was expected to be high; Obama would win the state, Prop. 8 would be defeated.
Only that's not how things turned out. Prop 8 passed and much of its support came from minorities opposed to the very idea in part because of their religion or the teachings of their churches. (Disclosure: Spot-on's Pinpoint Persuasion Ad Network did some work for "No on 8" but was not involved in any strategy or campaign decisions).
Fast forward to the inaugural where Rick Warren, the evangelical preacher, has been asked to say the invocation at Obama's swearing-in. Like a lot of evangelicals and political conservatives, Warren has likened gay marriage to child abuse and molestation; his views on same-sex relationships are hardly liberal, let alone tolerant.
Still, his speaking at the Inaugural is a bit of fancy foot-work on the part of the president-elect. It's a bit of a returning-a-favor since Obama was asked to appear - and did well - at Warren's Saddleback church, in a showcase designed to speak to the religious right. It's a little bit of a wink to the black church and Rev. Jermiah Wright whose pulpit shenanigans created such a distraction for the Obama campaign over the summer. Controversial preachers come in all flavors, now don't they? The invitation is also a nice bit practical politics, bordering on the cynical. Obama's playing to a crowd that he took special care in his victory speech to single out and ask for support of his presidency.
All of which means that Barack Obama is one skilled politician. But unlike former President Bill Clinton, Obama's working on getting the folks who aren't in the tent inside. He's let his supporters make assumptions about what he'll actually do with the understanding that he's a raging lefty so that group has almost no where to go - now that he's elected. More importantly, unlike the Clinton administration, the left didn't hold its nose and vote for Obama. They got behind him and, for better of worse, they're going to stay there.
Whether Obama actually manages to do accomplish his stated goal - turning his detractors into supporters - remains to be seen. But it's gonna be fun to watch.
It's been a lot of fun watching Silicon Valley this past election year. It's quite a contrast to political apathy and almost religious faith in free markets - think Ayn Rand with a laptop - that once carried the day.
The realization that things around here had changed came when finance, tech folks, start-up CEOs and reporters watching Obama's victory speech said, almost in unison: "Hey look, Sam Perry's on TV .... with Jesse Jackson? And Oprah!"
Even though he's going to raise their taxes by a lot, Silicon Valley went for Obama in a big, big way. And Sam Perry - a former reporter, an investor and advisor to start-ups (even this one!) - was part of that effort. So was Netscape founder Marc Andreessen who's taking credit for introducing Obama to the wonders of social networks.
It's a change, make no mistake about that. Ten years ago as tech people and their financiers began to understand the reach and depth of the Internet, there was a lot of talk about how states would become less influential. There was a lot of babbling over at places like Wired magazine about how the web was going to give rise to individual action that would, eventually, do away with the need for government and nations.
One of the more articulate folks on this point was Avram Miller, then an executive at Intel and one of the smarter thinkers about where that company was headed. This year Miller has been a strong advocate of Barack Obama's presidency. Which seems like it's a contradiction. If you believe the state is less important, why do you care who runs the place?
"I don't know that I've changed my mind," says Miller. "For me this wasn't so much about politics," he said of the recent election. "It's was very simply good people versus bad people." Miller also makes another observation about Obama's candidacy that shows him to be a member of the "one-man" school of historiography. "The right person has to have the right situation. But the right situation doesn't create the right person."
The high minded talk of the valley's intellgentsia - and Millers' a member in good standing - is usually reflected in how it conducts business. Make no mistake: there are practical aspects to all this enthusiasm. Silicon Valley has long been a cash register for the Democratic party but it's leadership has often been happy to limit itself to that role: a dinner, a fundraiser and getting to drop the Leader of the Free World's name in conversation. This time, they're after bigger game.
Recently powerhouse venture capitalist John Doerr, suggested to his fellow Harvard Business alums that DARPA - the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency - be returned to its original purpose. Doerr's idea was that DARPA, which created and fostered the initial growth of the Internet, could do something similar for "green" technology.
In other words, Doerr would like the U.S. government to get back in the business of incubating start-ups. They may well need the help. The credit crunch has hit many of these operations hard. When it comes to this new class of investment, there's no such thing as "virtual." Companies need to borrow money to finance construction and development of physical things.
Talk of the "green New Deal" that the Obama administration may create - public spending for the development and construction of clean energy source like turbine farms, solar panel displays - would amount to something of a bailout for firms like Doerr's that have invested in these companies. So would the administration's decision to lift federal funding bans on stem cell research. Both would funnel a river of money to high tech companies.
That's not necessarily bad. But it's different. And while many of those intimately involved in this volte face are going to insist that that they haven't changed their outlooks or approach - the market is still the market, politics is still a dirty business, entrepreneurs are still marvels of independent thought and action - those of us who have watched politics for a long time know better.
The Bush administration outraged men in the valley like Miller who place a great premium on competence. Obama's candidacy was able to capture their imagination and his intelligence gave them faith that he'd actually do a good job. But that still doesn't mean the valley loves politics. "Politics has really become a means to its own ends," says Miller. "I think most politicians are disgusting. I just thin of them as guys who's primary mission in life it to get elected."
That's exactly right, of course. You can't get anything done unless you're in office. But what about the idea - one hardly original - that an involved electorate, voters who care, will elected better, more suitable politicians? Well, says Miller, perhaps. "I find it difficult to argue with that."
Let's be clear: If Sen. Barack Obama is not elected president tomorrow it will indeed be because he's black.
It won't be because he's not tough enough - that's a euphemism that questions Obama's judgement and suggests that the color of his skin makes his thought process somehow inadequate. And it won't be because he's a "graduate student" - that's a jab that implies that Obama's not really that smart - he can't be, he's black.
No, if Obama loses it will be because a large number of Americans can't bring themselves to vote for a man with dark skin. They may feel Obama is not "ready" - code, like all these other phrases, for "not a white person we can trust". They may not like the idea of a First Lady - silly title, really - who is very dark-skinned and "angry" - which is how whites often describe black folks who aren't obviously grateful for the "opportunities" they've had.
Each of these euphemisms ignores a simple fact: African-Americans who have done well at the nation's top law firms, its Ivy League universities, its corporate boardrooms have had to demonstrate perseverence, judgement, diplomacy, intelligence and toughness and fortitude. More so, much more so, than their white counterparts.
That's on top of the the obvious insults. For the past few days, the Republican Trust Political Action Committee has been airing a television commercial here in San Francisco that neatly sums up all the criticism of Obama, imagined and otherwise. It claims Obama's "power base" was built in the church run by Rev. Jeremiah Wright and accompanied by pictures - and some audio - of Rev. Wright talking about the "KKK" and "god-damn" America. The ads end: "Barack Obama, too radical, too risky."
What's interesting about this ad isn't what it says - same old, same old from a political party that's happily scared the daylights out of white folks for a generation - it's where it's running. San Francisco is one of the most liberal cities in the U.S. But it is not a white city; it's Asian, mostly Chinese. The ad I've described is aimed at instilling fear in those immigrants, taking a racist stereotype that many may know and imposing in on a man they may not.
It's scurilous, it's racist and well, it tells you what many, many people really think about Obama. The Wright ads are a slightly more sophisticated version of the scenario concocted by that Texas college student who dreamed up an attack by a tall black man who was supposed enraged by her John McCain bumper sticker. The subtext: Be afraid of Obama because, given the chance, black people will inflict deliberate harm on whites out of anger, jealousy or revenge.
This nonsense is not confined to the stupid or the politically naive. How else can you explain the speculation that Gen. Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama was motivated by racial solidarity? Or silly Monica Crowley's dismay that Jet and Ebony magazines had gotten better treatment on the Obama campaign plane than writers from the New York Post and Washington Times? This nonsense is nothing more than a variation on another theme: It is very hard for people of different races to truly see one another but, for crying out loud, they don't all think alike.
This is one ugly mirror of race relations in this country, a mirror that not very many white folks like to look at. Which is something that - if Obama does win - will start to change.
Everyone has their shopping list on this one. My great hopes is that Obama's election will do away with a lot of nonsensical chatter about "post-racial." This is a stupid phrase that's code for "do they know?" as in "Does Michelle know she's the only black woman in the room?" The answer to that question is obvious: If you were the only white woman in a room of African-Americans would you "know"?
"Post racial" is how people in power describe a world they think welcomes black folks. This is a world that many of them - as Time columnist Joe Klein put it awkwardly - don't really understand. With reason. The most amusing thing about the Charlie Rose show where Klein made his comments was also the most appalling. In an election year that has seen two historic candidacies, a black man and a white woman run hard for the Democratic Party's nomination and break our concept of what it means to be a successful politician, Rose' guests, all talented journalists from "major" outlets, were all men and they were all white. I guess the "qualified" female commentators are still bitterly weeping over Sen. Clinton's loss so they didn't have time for Rose. And, of course, the black reporters are all on the Obama campaign plane, reveling in their new found status.
This would be a very different election if, as Obama has suggested, this country had a conversation about race and race relations and not just between white guys talking to themselves about themselves. Events - the stock market crash first and foremost - have taken the urgency of that exchange off the table. But in a nation where whites will soon be a large minority, not a majority, it's one that's needed, regardless of who wins tomorrow.
It's always hard to watch when politicians and business people collide - and they almost always collide - because their frames of reference are so, well, far apart. Wall Street punishes to the maximum, as my friend Andy Kessler likes to remind us. And it usually does so quickly. In Washington, well, punishment is often meted out slowly, sometimes years after the initial offense. And politicians reinvent themselves all the time - without any ticker to display a record.
But whenever there's a collision, there are winners and losers; the windshield, the bug and all that. It's always sort of fun to sort the sides out. And, just for today, we're going to leave President George Bush out of this. At this stage, reciting the faults of this administration isn't just beating a dead horse, it's kicking a long-dead nag to the glue factory with steel-tipped boots.
So let's get started.
Big losers: Anyone who espouses "pay-as-you-go" as a mantra for sound fiscal management regardless of the undertaking. Most people who know - really know - how financial markets work know that the idea that businesses live strictly within their means - that they never, ever, ever spend more than they bring in - is a lot of nonsense.
Overnight borrowing - in one way or another - keeps things humming along and has for a while. No one really pays as they go - that's why you and I borrow money to buy houses and cars. And it's about time we all recognized this as a fact of economic life.
Loser: John McCain. He was supposed to call the Republican Party rank and file to a deal; getting the folks who wanted to disassociate themselves from President Bush. McCain didn't get the job done. And oh, yeah, he blew off David Letterman. That's worse than picking a fight with Murphy Brown. And would someone please call Katie Couric up and ask America's perkiest interviewer what Sarah Palin said - or didn't say - to call forth a look that can only be described as thinly disguised disgust on Couric's face?
Really Big Loser: Chris Cox, head of the Securities and Exchange Commission who's had to acknowledged that lax regulation - again - by his agency contributed to Wall Street's woes. If they'd been actually doing their jobs real disaster might have been avoided. Anyone working in Silicon Valley since the tech market crashed knows the commission hasn't been up to its job in for the past 10 years but it was Cox - a big fan of minimal government regulation - to oversee it being proven without any ambiguity.
Sure to be Sore Losers: The TV business press. Covering the stock market as though it were a football game isn't going to be as much fun - or as popular with shareholders - as covering a market that grows slowly. If you're name is Jim Cramer you might wanna think about a new outlet for your energies.
Which brings us to winners.
Long-term Winner: The buy-and-hold crowd. That's right, buying stock, holding on to it and watching it appreciate over oh, the life of your child, is coming back in a big way. Why do you think Warren Buffet's on a shopping spree? A market where transactions are overseen by the government is one that will more more slowly, more deliberately. And yes, I do want to say I told you so.
Winning Politiician: Rep. Barney Frank gets big time points for his negotiating skills, so much so that's probably a safe bet that he'll be the next Senator from Massachusetts. Frank's no diplomat - he's got a hair-trigger temper, particularly at 2 a.m. which is when he once took my head off - but he's determined, he's smart and he's been worried about the shadow banking system created on Wall Street since earlier this summer. He'll lead the re-regulation of financial markets next year and it'll be a set of hearings and investigations - and legislative drafting - worth watching.
Another winner: Barack Obama. A long career watching politics teaches that there are two things never worth second-guessing. One, the result of Supreme Court cases. Oral arguments are clues to what the justices may do but clues aren't decisions. The other are the results - the final take away - that voters have of debates. On Friday, I thought it was tied. Today, it's pretty clear that Obama's stateliness and calm was more impressive than McCain's short-hand Senate speak.
Possible huge winner: The U.S. Congress which, after eight years - and I'm being generous - of dithering, has finally grown a spine. They didn't do everything the Bush Administration to fix the mess that's Wall Street and they took their time about it. You might disagree with the outcome - this deal is taking way too long to get sorted out - but they're moving. Which bodes well. The SEC isn't the only thing that needs fixing (two words: health care) and now that Congress has got the hang of this decision-making stuff they're supposed to do, well, we might actually have a government. You know, back and forth, balance of power and all that.
You get a sense Congress thinks so, too. Why? They're pushing back. Go find the clip of Rep. Marcy Kaptur chastising a CNBC reporter as he accuse her of voting to bring down the U.S. economy: "You're very anxious, I can hear your voice there,' says Kaptur who gave one of the better speeches - as a Democrat - for why she voted against the Wall Street rescue plan. "For the sake of the country and even the sake of the markets I think you should operate prudently and with a little bit of calm in your voice today. What we want to do is be responsible not just for what happens on Wall Street but what happens to the American tax payer generations hence."
Which is, in the end, what we pay them to do.
When they attend tomorrow's ceremony for the 9/11 bombings, it's a safe bet it will be the last time Presidential nominees Barack Obama and John McCain behave decently toward one another. This election year is starting to feel like it's going to be one of the nastier campaigns on record.
This is a year where the sexist and racist stereotypes we all share are going to get folded, bent and mutilated in ways that will offend each and every one of us at one point or another. Americans discuss their differences in code and this may well be the year when the code get deciphered in some new ways for new audiences.
It's not just the pit bull in lipstick as Republican Vice Presidential contender Sarah Palin calls herself. And it's not Obama's use of that timeworn phrase "lipstick on a pig". Hey, Barry, Iowa was last year. We're past pigs now. Or we were until Alaska's governor decided to crack wise about how tough she is. Oh, wait, Palin was joking - no offense meant, governor. No, you're not pig-like at all. If I were going to insult you, I'd probably have used the gender-specific "sow."
The real problem here is the seeming closeness in the campaign's goals and the ways in which they are articulating their messages for large groups of voters.
That's not to say that Obama and McCain have the same ideas for how to run the country. They don't. But their campaigns are pitching very similar messages to a very small group of voters: Vote for change. Change in health care, change in the economy, change in how the nation does business - at home and abroad.
That's not exactly a hugely original strategy for either party. Voter disgust with the way Washington claims to "work" is high. So high that the largest political party in the country is "none of the above," a group that in four years has gone from about 7 percent of registered voters to just about 20 percent.
"None of the above" are often called "independent" voters and this year they've got the election in their hands. And, of that group of independent voters, women are considered a key voting block, making up about 60 percent of the "none of the above" faction. And women decide late. Which is campaign-speak for "they change their minds. dammit."
So why does that mean things will get nasty?
Lots of politicians think the best way to get women to vote one way or another is to scare them then offer them the welcoming broad shoulder of security and authority. It worked for George Bush. You may not have thought you were a "security Mom" until you took one look at John Kerry on a windsurfer.
Other girl-baiting tactics include hiring women and making a big fuss about it. The Republicans are very, very good at this. Two examples: Sandra Day O'Connor, first women to sit on the Supreme Court, and, today, Sarah Palin. Of course, Sarah Palin couldn't shine O'Conner's shoes but that could easily devolve into a trivial argument about, "qualifications" and, well, a lot of women - paging Hillary Rodham Clinton - find that conversation offensive.
But "qualifications" is a word that often sums up our ideas about race. For years, the white folk who run corporate America have bemoaned the absence of "qualified" black applicants. They'd love to hire more African-Americans, they'd say, but none who are qualified apply. This while they hire their best friends' sons - white kids - for the mailroom and other entry-level jobs.
"Qualified" is a word that many white folks use to say "well, he's not like us" and that's very much the subtext of the talk about Obama's ability to lead. It's not lost on the candidate or his family.The fashion rags have already noted Michelle Obama's dress - conservative, stylish and Jackie-Kennedy like - and it's comfort factor. Tall, lanky and dark-skinned, Michelle Obama is dressing to reassure people that she's not Angela Davis. It's only kinda of working as The New Yorker slyly observed.
Which brings us to the last subtext: race. Using a black man to scare white voters, particularly women (Security Moms!) is a tried and true tactic. It's kept the South Republican for a generation. It got George H.W. Bush elected. And it may well work for McCain's campaign. The tactic backfired on Clinton, mostly because she was sloppy in her language and a little too-straightforward about her appeal to white men who don't wanna take orders from a black man. But it may well work - with a chilling effectiveness - for some talented McCain surrogate.
Which begs a question: Where is Ann Coulter? And why has she been so quiet so long?
Normally in a political race, vice presidential nominees are compared to one another. So it was Dick Cheney v. John Edwards or, earlier, Cheney v. Joe Lieberman. But this year, even though there will be debates (assuming her name stays on the ticket) between the two veeps it doesn't feel as though Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's been picked as a contrast with Sen. Joe Biden.
Barely Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman is the contrast to Biden, on the important area of foreign affairs, it seems. Lieberman who can probably count on the Secretary of State job in the McCain administration, is a flatly pro-Israel hawk who approves of the Bush Administration's Middle East policy. Biden, a bit more of a rationalist in these matters - and a mouthy one - and probably can't be relied on to toe that same line. Nor can Obama who has all but suggested a Middle East policy that would reduce the influence of Israel and the Saudi Arabia.
No, it seems as though Sarah Palin is meant to provide a contrast to Michelle Obama. And that's not a race thing. It's a class thing.
With her demur designer dresses, her Princeton degree, her pearl chokers and her long, lean good looks, Michelle Obama looks pretty much like every other career woman you'd meet in any big city in the U.S. - the kind who make a lot of men, white and black, nervous. Two kids - well behaved and almost professional nurtured - a husband she ruefully admires who's just as well-educated, a nice house and a couple of good jobs, Obama is clearly smart, focused and on-the-ball. And, oh yeah, you better do what she says 'cause she's almost six-feet tall.
The more petite Palin with her cracks about breast pumps and tales of in-flight labor, her beauty pageant past and her sloppy parenting seems, by contrast, warm and wacky, a little bit like the Mom who makes you wonder - not always in a good way - how or why she does it. Which isn't to say that Palin isn't competent. It's just that she's someone with a lot of ragged edges. And there's a sneaking temptation to think of the Palin family - and you can hear the kids shouting, the door slamming, the off-kilterness of it all - as what is described through clenched teeth by the residents of "better" neighborhoods - neighborhoods like the one where the Obamas live - as "those people down the street.....", folks who don't quite have it together because they're just barely making it.
Palin's lack of national political savvy makes her, in a word, girlish. And girlish, for a lot of men - men like John McCain - often means more game than prudent, a little rough around the edges. Fun. For some, that's charm. For others - mostly the very voters McCain's trying to attract - it's sexist because it's clear we don't have to take Palin seriously. Unlike Michelle Obama.
Which is why Paln's selection - if it lasts past this week - is a horrible miscalculation.
A lot of the right-of-center voices are suggesting that Palin's candidacy is a way to draw Hillary Clinton supporters away from the Democrats. This is nonsense. Clinton's supporters - those older women in their 60s - are going to take one look at Sarah Palin and sigh. This - this girl - is not qualified to answer HRC's Senate office phone.
Others are suggesting that Palin's youth will serve as a contrast to Barack Obama and therefore draw young (and by young they mean young male) voters to the Republican Party. The thinking here is that they'll vote for Palin who is, as various gossip website observed, very attractive. But most of the young folks who are fired up about Obama are more interested in his cool, hipness. They want to be him; they don't want to do him. And shotgun weddings like the one Palin's daughter's about to have are never hip for young men.
The professional women who have been on the fence between Obama and McCain see the desparation in this move, the miscalculation, the condescension to their particular point of view by getting a girl to do a woman's job. It's one thing to have a daughter you're proud of, give her a job in your office and nurture her career - as, say Hugh Hefner did with his daughter, Christine. It's something else again to have a pretty young thing with not much experience get the second slot in a White House run by a man with serious and chronic health problems. Even Hef took his time teaching daughter Christine the publishing business and these days, when he wants to hang out with young girls, he does it in L.A., not at corporate headquarters in Chicago.
A few weeks ago, I said that it was time that women in various professions - politics and journalism - start pointing out sexist behavior and demanding that it stop. Well, Jessica DaSilva, a young woman in Tampa, Florida, and Clark Hoyt, a man in New York City, have given me an excuse to do just that. If you want to know why there are few women writing solid opinion journalism a look at DaSilva and Hoyt is a pretty good snapshot.
A post on DaSilva's personal blog detailing a recent staff meeting at the Tampa Tribune announcing - again - lay-offs was the talk of the web this slow news weekend mostly because of the reactions DaSilva got from her colleagues. They offer an insightful look at how the mostly male news establishment goes about silencing enthusiasm and optimism.
"Wow, you really are young and naive, aren't you?" "Jamie" writes on DaSilva's site. "Someone sent me the link to your blog, and I almost had to laugh, it was so ridiculous. I'm truly amazed that in one of your other posts, you can tell reporters to stop whining and do something about their situation. What, praytell, young lady, would you like them to do? Let's say you were at the Trib for 10 years and had a family to support; what would you do if you were laid off? (By the way, it's laid off, not layed off. If you can read this, thank a copy editor.)" Jamie - who doesn't submit his last name - finishes with a flourish: "Unfortunately, I would say that if most of the Trib staff (or any other newspaper's staff, for that matter) reads some of your posts, you will make some serious enemies. That's something you don't want to do in this business; it's WAY too small, and with the climate as it is now, you don't want people against you. Give that some serious thought."
And this post wasn't a one-time event. Jamie repeats his threats in another comment. He - or perhaps "Jamie" is a she, the charge of sexism still stands - has a fellow-traveler in "Michael": "I'm an editor at a medium-sized paper and I'm sending your name around to everyone I know in the business to make sure that you are never hired anywhere."
Why is this an example of sexism? There's the use of the "praytell young lady" for starters. Then, there's the assumption that DaSilva doesn't have - and won't expect to have - a family to support. It would be nice if DaSilva's case were isolated. But every woman in every newsroom knows it's not; this is just a case of the threat made overt. And it's why there's precious little opinion writing by women.
Which brings us to one of the few doing the job, Maureen Dowd, and comments made by New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt. Hoyt's since retracted any sort of intention that he meant to tell Dowd to "tone it down." But that's exactly what he was doing. But he then fell for one of the oldest dodges on the planet practiced by a woman well-versed in the sort of nonsense that came DaSilva's way.
When she started covered politics there was a lot of "how dare she?" around Dowd's writing and what was described by the male political press corps as her "feminine" style of reporting. These days, she placates that crowd, indulging in cheap shots that meld pop culture and paperback psychology in columns that read like nonsense to you and me by play well with the working political press corps who are in on all the inside jokes.
And she gets away with it. Why? Because, as Hoyt notes somewhat ruefully as he fell for her line, Dowd's got a good defense: she's a girl she can't - as someone suggested in regard to "Jamie" be sexist. She - or perhaps they - can say these things the boys can only think. And no one can lay a hand on them - they're girls talking about girls. It's a particularly cynical ploy on Dowd's part but it's masterfully executed.
But it's hollow. When Dowd uses female gender images to talk about male candidates - as she does with Obama and did with Al Gore - she's associating them with weakness. And just because no one's complained - as she told Hoyt - doesn't mean it's not sexist. It is. That's not playing with gender stereotyping, as Dowd maintains, it's playing into gender stereotyping. Hoyt's failure to think through his critique - from all sides - does as well. He treats Dowd with kid gloves and fails to examine one of her great failings as a columnist.
So you can see why it's hard to know what will become of Jessica DaSilva, a young and clearly ambitious women. Perhaps, in 10 years or so, we'll be able to read her observations about Chelsea Clinton's presidential campaign and we'll get insight, not cringe-inducing snipes about Daddy's girlfriends and Mommy's ambition that parade as the "woman's" voice on politics. Maybe.
But maybe DaSilva will, instead, end up working for Michael and Jaime's associates and this is the last we'll hear of her clear, smart voice. Maybe she'll figure if she has to spend half her time placating the boys on the bus just to have a little peace in the newsroom, she'll quit or - despite her inclinations - content herself with soft features, not breaking news and strong opinion.
So next time you wonder why there aren't any women writing opinion journalism or op-eds, consider Dowd and DaSilva and the obstructions - self-made and otherwise - that lie in front of both.
If Hillary Rodham Clinton had given the speech she gave Saturday conceding the Democratic nomination to Sen. Barack Obama at any point in her campaign - an enthusiastic, honest talk that, finally, told us that she was indeed running to shatter the glass ceiling in American politics - I might have actually paid a lot more attention.
I might have even voted for her.
But Clinton and her campaign spent their time trying to play by rules set down by the men who run television news. And like most big American businesses, television has a basic precept when it comes to women: No matter what, do not complain about sexism because complaining about sexism means you're a whiner who hates men. Whining is unattractive and hating men, well, that's just dumb.
Clinton did the old "personal note" dodge (code for "I know this might make you uncomfortable....") but her speech finally gave an authorative voice to what pretty much every woman working in and around politics knows: It's a boy's game. "I am a woman and like millions of women I know there are barriers and biases out there - often unconscious," she said.
Ya think?
Now, let's be clear, Clinton lost not because of sexism. She lost for many reasons, among them her husband's mouthy showboating, her tin ear for racial politics, her lousy get-out-the-vote efforts and, above all, her failure to understand that this really was not the year when a female candidate could build a lawyerly case for her moving back into the White House.
There was and is a need for dramatic change in American politics today. And the Clintons missed it.
They missed in large part because they played a 1992 game and 1992 politics was dominated by television and other mass media outlets who have long barred women from talking about politics. In that environment, the dirty tricks and sex role stereotyping that the Clintons employed to discredit women like Gennifer Flowers worked effectively because they played to the sexism of those covering politics. But that day is fading away. And one of the frustrations that many women had about Hillary Clinton was her inability to see that sexual freedoms and feminism are fused in the minds of many young women.
That's not a change that's been reflected in the national conversation about politics, however.
Women working on-line have long been aware of this disconnect and frustrated by its effects. For the most part, "blogger" means "young white man"; they've been able to dominate political talk on-line because their popularity is supported and encouraged by Big Media producers, op-ed page editors and the political establishment. Meanwhile, we girls get Glam and "MommyBlogging" and Shine where the bad news is about calories and sexually transmitted diseases, not about economic discrimination against women or the lousy state of prenatal health care for most mothers.
In the past few months, the conversation about who - and how - political discourse is conducted in this country has moved past the "oh, interesting" stage and moved on to something more substantive. Just last month, the Washington Post's omsbudsperson Deborah Howell noticed - gasp! - that her newspaper's editorial pages are dominated by older white men. The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof followed up with a blog post on the subject that's generated more than 500 comments - five times more than anything else he's done recently.
Right now, it's just talk. Progress is going to be slow and painful. Take a look at MSNBC's self-styled "liberal" Countdown's lineup of "friends" and you'll find two women, one of whom is charged with "covering" American Idol. This, of course, is cousin to the network that the Clintons - with reason - singled out for Chris Matthew's inane questions and observations. (An aside: If Chris Matthews were a woman would she be on TV? With that hair?) CNN's no better and you really don't want to rehash Katie Couric's status at CBS, do you? Me neither.
In issuing her "personal note" on the frustrations of being a working woman in American, Clinton has given voice - finally - to an enormous amount of frustration and outrage. She has, one can hope, set the stage for women to note the presence of discrimination in their workplace and in their profession. She has, one can hope, made it acceptable to ask men - and women, while we're on the subject - to stop being satisfied with one voice representing the various points of view held by women in America today and to look past gender when hiring and recruiting. And she's done so with a new tone - and 18 million people behind her.
Clinton's most fervent supporters are and were right when they note that sexism is an acceptable part of our culture. But their comments about the patriarchy are dated notions of what constitutes acceptable behavior today. They are strident, they do whine and many, many of them do hate men. It keeps them from seeing the gains that have been made.
Clinton did a nice job of sending that sort of rhetoric on its way to the dust bin of history Saturday. Too bad it's too late to put her in the White House.
It may seem hard to believe, but the animosity, the vitriolic name-calling, the camera-ready public protests and the massive self-pity that characterized much of San Francisco's politics throughout the 1990s is going national.
The keystone of this aggrieved campaign style is the idea that virtue should triumph and that all who stand in its way are somehow morally bankrupt or worse. Here in San Francisco, when Green Party candidate Matt Gonzalez ran against San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, his campaign boiled down to one idea: Progressives like me are good, everyone else is bad. You're good, you should vote for me.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it? On the national stage, oddly enough, it's not the long-suffering Progressives who are ratcheting up the volume. It's the more conservative, corporate wing of the party, led by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The theater that passed for public debate over the weekend when the Democratic National Committee met to split its primary baby and allow convention delegates from the rogue states of Michigan and Florida a half-vote each in Denver was familiar to observers of San Francisco politics.
There's the self-justifying: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has served her country well - she deserves to be president! There was the self-pity: As a female candidate, Clinton's had to face more scrutiny than Obama! And there were the scare tactics: Clinton, rather than Obama, can beat McCain. Oh, and let's not forget the wallowing as Clinton supporters rolled their eyes and murmured little asides like, "I wonder what democracy looks like," in reference to the DNC's decision. It was all articulated - for better or worse - by the card-carrying protestors, the booing and shouting that punctuated Saturday's meeting.
What's really galling - and gall is a key element in this sort of politics - is that Hillary Clinton is trying to position herself as the candidate of "the people." She can say this because she's won more popular votes than her rival Sen. Barack Obama and because she may continue - using her campaign's odd math (caucuses aren't counted, ballots cast are) - to do so. This is a ham-handed way to position Clinton as the Al Gore of this contest - the person who will get screwed by crooked back-room tactics.
But Hillary Clinton isn't a woman of the people by any stretch of the imagination. Her husband, the poor boy born in Hope, Ark., who realized the American dream and rose to become president through hard-work, intelligence and and no shortage of political chicanery, used to be "the people's" representative. Sen. Clinton, born in a respectable Chicago suburb, once a Barry Goldwater supporter, a graduate of Wellesley and Yale, has the populist touch of, well, of a moderate Republican.
The real issue here isn't that Hillary Clinton is being treated badly because she's a woman. To paraphrase Geraldine Ferraro: If Hillary Clinton were a white man running the campaign she's run, he'd have been drummed out of this contest back in March. Clinton's gender is keeping her in the race, not pushing her out.
The Clintons have simply run a lousy campaign. It would have been a perfectly fine effort in 1992. Today it falls short because it's a corporate-driven 90's-style effort to out-spend and out-spin its rivals. Obama's more embracing style is working much better. And voters are responding.
Those are the mechanics. The Clinton campaign falls short for other, more traditional reasons: the screw-ups by the two candidates involved. Sen. Clinton started her campaign against Obama by dissing the Rev. Martin Luther King. Her husband followed up, equating Obama's efforts with that of the corrupt and almost universally distrusted Jesse Jackson. She's ending it by reminding folks that presidential candidates are sometimes assassinated and asserting her popularity among uneducated white folks who aren't going to vote for a black president. He's offered to talk her into taking the vice presidency, a trial balloon that only brought - out into the open - the question of what he'll be doing once the family's back in Washington.
In the end, it's hard to avoid a second conclusion, one that undercuts pretty much every statement Clinton's made about her historic run for the White House. This isn't about her. It's about them. If Obama becomes the nominee - with the money-making machinery he's built, with his support among black voters, with his grace and, oh yeah, the support of the Kennedy family - it's Bill Clinton, not his wife, who's the loser. He will no longer be the Big Dog of the Democratic Party. He'll be another ex-president. Just like Jimmy Carter.
And that undercuts pretty much every other assertion the Clintons are attempting to make. Because if it were really all about her, we wouldn't be talking to - or about - him.
Finally, they're talking regulation on Wall Street. And with straight - well, as straight as you can get in an election year - faces. Amazing. And, if you're a tech investor - or start-up CEO - pretty worrisome.
Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson was right when he noted on Monday that the reforms he or anyone else envisions will take years to enact. But, don't worry, there will be legislation. Anyone who thinks that investment banks, hedge funds and their cousins, private equity firms are going to somehow escape federal government scrutiny is flat wrong. Their time has come. Again.
The preferred vehicle for savings in the U.S. moved from the nice little bank down the street to the brokerage outlet on the corner about 20 years ago. And for the past 10, it's been pretty clear to anyone who looked closely that rules about how those stock-based outfits ran their business were long over-due. The problem is that no one noticed until things went really bad. Twice.
Here in California, we got a front row seat to all this with the Internet stock bubble. The press releases said it was a period of enormous innovation during which fabulously intelligent people took massive risks with new technology and were reward in keeping with the size of that risk. That's one way to look at the five years that minted billionaires like, well, Countrywide used to write $1 million mortgages to folks with shaky credit: By the minute.
Here's another view: The late 1990s were a time when the investment portfolios of large institutions - colleges and universities, for instance, pension funds and charities - expanded in value as so-called average Americans put their savings into stocks (mostly via 401-K and other IRA-like plans) and as a result of good old supply-and-demand, stock prices rose. Richer than they'd ever been, these institutions put lots of money into venture capital funds. The venture capital funds spent like drunken sailors on an extended shore leave. As long as the stock market stayed up, they could reap the rewards of their investments at ridiculous rates of return - 20 and 30 times initial outlays wasn't uncommon.
Venture capitalist - like mortgage companies - relied on investment bankers who buy and sell stock for a living to help them reap those rewards. And like mortgage brokers, the VCs laid off some risk by selling their wares to someone else, in this case, IPO stock to the public, a price much higher than what they initially paid. As long as the market headed up, up, up - again, because folks were putting money in and buying - the i-bankers were able to aggressively selling stocks of all kinds to all kinds of buyers, some less informed than they should have been.
If all this reminds you, expect for the terms of art, of the U.S. mortgage crisis - a time where anyone could get a loan because it was assumed that the price of real estate would go up, up, up - you are not alone. Everyone understands a mortgage - loan for a house - but not so many people understand the intricate financial arrangement that make today's equity markets function. A lot of folks on Wall Street don't understand the mathematical models used to buy and sell credit (or loans) on the street just as a lot of brokers didn't understand what - exactly TheGlobe.com did even as they were hawking its wares to middle-aged school teachers with IRAs hoping to retire to Hawaii.
In both cases, those who profited the most were pretty left to oversee the quaility of the products they sold and - at the same time - look out for their customers.
During the stock bubble, the Securities and Exchange Commission made no bones about its inability to keep up with the number of filings it had to process, review and approve. As long as the appropriate statements about risk were included in the paperwork, the stock got sold. Something similar happened at the mortgage banks. As long as everyone signed a piece of paper saying they knew risk was involved - your mortgage rate could increase at any time - the loans got written. If there's a difference it's that many of those on Wall Street and in financial institutions around the world, didn't take a lot of tech companies seriously. Too bad they didn't feel that way about the bad mortgages that got written.
The end result of all this is going to be something that no one - particularly not tech investors here in California - likes to think about. Can you imagine a Netscape public offering - the company's main product was given away - sponsored by a financial institution supervised by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.? Me neither. So get ready for a more cautious and more prudent system of underwriting risk for sale in the public stock market. From now on, the growth curves for the creation, development and sale of companies - in all industries but particularly in the tech business - are going to get longer and more moderate.
So, if you're a Silicon Valley VC, the time to think about retiring is right about now. Maybe you should consider a career in politics.
