Hiatus
I will be back eventually with commentary and personal reflections on life post-Hillary, but to distract myself in the interim, I am now devoting my energies towards a new blog – aptly named Jaded Palate. I was always an emotional eater.
That’s all folks
This email says it all:
Dear Wendy,
I wanted you to be one of the first to know: on Saturday, I will hold an event in Washington D.C. to thank everyone who has supported my campaign. Over the course of the last 16 months, I have been privileged and touched to witness the incredible dedication and sacrifice of so many people working for our campaign. Every minute you put into helping us win, every dollar you gave to keep up the fight meant more to me than I can ever possibly tell you.
On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.
I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party’s nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise.
When I decided to run for president, I knew exactly why I was getting into this race: to work hard every day for the millions of Americans who need a voice in the White House.
I made you — and everyone who supported me — a promise: to stand up for our shared values and to never back down. I’m going to keep that promise today, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life.
I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise.
I know as I continue my lifelong work for a stronger America and a better world, I will turn to you for the support, the strength, and the commitment that you have shown me in the past 16 months. And I will always keep faith with the issues and causes that are important to you.
In the past few days, you have shown that support once again with hundreds of thousands of messages to the campaign, and again, I am touched by your thoughtfulness and kindness.
I can never possibly express my gratitude, so let me say simply, thank you.
Sincerely,
Hillary
Hillary and the Affair
Before Friday, I would have never written a post about Hillary and Bill’s marriage. It seems invasive – like I of all people have the brazen right to pry into someone’s personal life and delve into their soul without the least bit of concern for their privacy. But if Maureen Dowd can arrogantly talk as if she knows the intimate details behind the lives of Bill and Hillary, apparently, I can too. (She’s so obnoxious.)
I was at the dentist office on Friday, listening to an NPR clip as the hygienist scraped away. It was another polling piece where Pennsylvania voters voiced their opinions on the upcoming primary. I was struck by the number of people who spoke about Hillary and how they couldn’t support her because of the way she handled herself during the Lewinsky affair. Lovely. Here’s to sticking to the issues, people.
An Interview for Commander in Chief
So what do I think Bill’s affair says about Hillary’s capabilities as commander in chief? I think very little.
Unlike many of my friends, I’m not looking for the second coming of Jesus. I’m looking for a bright, capable candidate who will fix the mess that we’re in and so my approach has never been to dissect the personal lives of Hillary and Obama. Obama’s crazy pastor is Obama’s crazy pastor. Do his policies or the way he’s conducted his campaign reflect the anti-American, racially polarizing remarks of his pastor? Nope. Do Bill’s infidelities affect Hillary’s campaign and her policies? Apparently yes, but only in the minds and the perceptions of the people judging her.
I wonder how many of us would pass our own interviews if our personal lives were on the chopping block to be scrutinized. 
Well, I guess 50% would fail right off the bat for giving up on our marriages. Another 16% would be considered weak for staying in a marriage once an affair has taken place. And I wonder just how many partners at my ex-firm would be fired for messing around with their assistants.
I’m just very curious as to why people have this obsession with idealizing their leaders. I mean, isn’t it obvious that it’s very stupid idea? Whose perfect? MLK was a very well known philanderer as a church pastor no less. Does this take away from the great things that he accomplished as a public figure pushing for civil rights legislation and inspiring a generation of new activists?
Hillary and the American Ideal
Bill cheats and Hillary gets blamed. I love the warped minds of Americans. At the core of it is this idea of the American ideal. You know what I’m talking about. It’s the stuff American Idol is made of. Marriage is made of fairy dust and Kathering McPhee can’t possibly not like hanging out with her parents. That’s so non-Apple pie of her.
I don’t know what Hillary and Bill’s marriage is like. I have a feeling it’s more than a calculated bond for political convenience. Hillary’s an INTJ; Bill’s an ENFP – they’re a natural Myers-Briggs pair. 
I’m completely and utterly speculating at this point, but unlike some NY Times columnist at least I have the humility to admit this. INTJs and ENFPs are mind-mates. This is pretty evident in Bill and Hillary’s marriage. She’s an incredibly bright and knowledgeable woman and that’s a rare commodity for a bright and knowledgeable man. He trusted her enough to head up education reform in Arkansas and health care as our first lady. A more machismo driven man would have had his wife stand there and look pretty as many have done in the past and still do in the present (ahem…McCain).
I don’t know what life is like in the Clinton household, but I think it could go a little something like this:
Bill and Hillary at Dinner
Bill: Hi babe. I had a great day today. We just expanded offices to Uganda. That’s one more procurement partner driving up the scale advantages for buying retroviral medication for AIDS patients. More partners means cheaper medication and more people getting the medication they need.
Hillary: That’s cool, honey. Do you think we could do something similar in the US as it pertains to health care? Maybe put together a plan to include everyone. We can then use the increased scale to drive down the cost of the plan.
Bill: Yeah, should work. Let’s hope the Republicans and lobbyists don’t spend millions of dollars fooling Americans that a collective plan will somehow drive down the quality of healthcare like they did last time.
Hillary: True. [pause] Chelsea got a question from an obnoxious supporter about the whole Lewinsky thing today.
Bill: [pause...gulp] Yeah, I suck. I’m sorry that I put you and Chelsea through all that public humiliation. As an INTJ, you’re an intensely private person and having your personal affairs talked about at dinner tables and on blogs must kill you.
Hillary: You better be sorry. [glare] And you do suck. But you’re a decent man, even with all your obvious flaws. And I wish that people would understand that we may not be apple pie, but we’re about as real and American as it gets with all of our inherent flaws, contradictions, ideals and striving for something better…
Other Related Content
It’s not Her. It’s that Marriage, Newsweek
For Clintons, Delicate Dance of Married and Public Lives, NY Times
Republicans and the Games they Play on Education
As I was submitting my post to RealClearPolitics.com this morning, I ran across this beauty of an article.
A Bad Education Equals A Good Democrat
How do you turn someone into a lifelong Democrat? Give him a public school education.
Whenever I wrote about public schools in my job as an op-ed columnist for the NY Post, I would get letters stating that the above was the Democrats’ “secret weapon” for maintaining power. Since I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories, I viewed such letters as overwrought. Besides, you don’t need to be conspiratorial when you’re achieving the same ends in broad daylight.
A report issued by America’s Promise Alliance, a non-profit group dedicated to improving children’s lives, states that seventeen of the nation’s fifty largest cities had graduation rates below 50%. “When more than 1 million students a year drop out of high school, it’s more than a problem, it’s a catastrophe,” said former Secretary of State Colin Powell, founding chair of the alliance.
It’s a catastrophe some forty years in the making, Mr. Powell–and it comes courtesy of the Democratic party and its undying allegiance to public school unions. Read more here…
Oh, the games Republicans play, while our kids remain neglected. I promptly wrote Arnold Ahlert this (Here’s his email if you want to spam him: atahlert@comcast.net):
That’s a very cute story that you wrote on Political Maven. But it’s very much like a Republican to have such a market purist view that over simplifies the issue by a factor of 100. Democrats have traditionally been pro-union. Agreed. But both Democratic national candidates, Obama and Clinton, are standing up for charter schools and early childhood prevention, which are our best chances to significantly reform the public education system in the country. I find this especially ironic given the fact that Clinton during her work in Arkansas enforced better teacher qualification and credentialing, while McCain has done…what? Please remind me of what he’s done…
But let’s look at the real culprit of the decline of the public school system, especially in California – Proposition 13 enacted under Reagan that capped property taxes and therefore drained the system of much needed funding. Back in the 1960’s, California schools were ranked near the top and are now 48th in the country. Want to see a fun correlation chart? Check out public funding (x-axis) and student achievement (y-axis).
Instead of blaming Democrats for the mess we’re in, it would be nice to see a journalist seriously dive into the issues. In lieu of that, I’d just like you to stick to what you know, which apparently isn’t education.
-Wendy N.
Republicans and their school voucher BS. Yes, school vouchers are fine, but they definitely are not a well-thought out plan to overhaul our school system needs. In California, each student receives $9,009. A quick scan of the 30 something Oakland private schools out there places full-day tuition at about $12,000 – that’s roughly 30% more than what a low-income Oakland parent can afford for each child. We also haven’t touched on the number of private schools that would have to be built out of the blue to accommodate the 48,906 students in the 142 schools in Oakland Unified School District.
Honestly, it would be nice if instead of this back and forth, superficial coverage, we could get some smart journalists to “be the change” they seek. The irony is not lost on Hillary supporters.
Red Pill Politics surpasses 1000 hits
Who knew enough friends and internet randoms would find their way on to Red Pill Politics to drag it across the 1,000 hit mark. To give you a sense of how insignificant this milestone is, let me just mention that Facebook achieves the same amount of hits in about 3.98 seconds. I did the math. But life is about celebrating the small stuff, so let’s take a trip down memory lane. 
Top 5 Posts
| Obama as a Religion | 68 |  |
| The Red Phone | 55 | |
| Race and Politics: the Overused Divide | 44 | |
| Obama is no Steve Jobs | 41 | |
| The Workings of Class | 39 | |
The Tricks of Traffic
Thanks for all the support!
The Onion is Awesome
I found this post pretty hilarious and wanted to share:
Black Guy Asks Nation For Change
CHICAGO—According to witnesses, a loud black man approached a crowd of some 4,000 strangers in downtown Chicago Tuesday and made repeated demands for change.
“The time for change is now,” said the black guy, yelling at everyone within earshot for 20 straight minutes, practically begging America for change. “The need for change is stronger and more urgent than ever before. And only you—the people standing here today, and indeed all the people of this great nation—only you can deliver this change.” Read more here
Economics: the Achilles Heel of the Democratic Party (Part 1)
We’re wrong. Very wrong. Well, 80% wrong.
Sound economic policy is the one weapon lacking in the repertoire of the Democratic Party arsenal. It is our Achilles heal. It prevents us from moving right enough to attract moderates and fiscal Republicans. Right enough to become the definitive, dominant party in the US.
As a subject, economics is difficult to grasp because of its inherent counter-intuitive nature, which stumps even those as bright Jon Stewart (who I love dearly and respect for the way he has handled the primary coverage). But watching Stewart discuss economics with Alan Greenspan was about as painful as me trying to get through Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time. We’re just not worthy.
In this post, I want to layout some basic economic principles. In my next post, I’ll discuss why well-meaning Democrats make it hard for our Democratic candidates to run up and up campaigns as witnessed recently by Obama and his NAFTA issues.
Economics is like science
I remember the moment when it all clicked. I was sitting in my International Trade class in HK, and Professor Gary threw up the following slide and things started making sense. I could almost hear the Hallelujah chorus in the background. Nerd that I am, it was like the first time I found out that the everyday items around me were made of atoms – tiny particles whose theoretical nature seemed completely irrelevant to my daily life but in fact were the building blocks to everything in its existence. Economics is the same way. Economics like science is part of the 20% that explains 80% of life and the rationale for why things happen the way they do. And to some Republicans, Adam Smith’s invisible hand is like God. Asking them to deny its presence is sacrilegious.
Principle 1: Trade fuels economic growth
Trade is tricky. Intuitively, one feels that there is a winner and a loser in the game of trade. And much to my chagrin, our Democratic leaders (except for Bill Clinton) continue to perpetuate this myth. To understand trade, one must fight off one’s “the world is flat” tendencies.
Ghana & South Korea: A Case Study in Trade
At this time, Nkrumah, Ghana’s Prime Minister, wanting a Ghana independent from foreign influences, took an isolationist view towards trade. He imposed import substitution (buying goods from within a region vs. outside the region), government centralization of economic decisions (government decides prices), nationalized industries (government controlled businesses) – basically, everything we know to not work when attempting to grow an economy. But everything that would feel like it makes sense when using human psychology. Let’s not be dependent on any other country; let’s not trade. Let’s help people by lowering costs; let’s set prices.
South Korea, on the other hand, embraced foreign trade and utilized an export driven model to fuel economic growth (a.k.a China).
There you have it. Do you want a world where people are no longer living in extreme poverty? Where people are not reduced to drinking out of puddles like I’ve seen on the streets of Saigon. It has nothing to do with re-allocating wealth as Marx would have you believe. Let’s remove our trade barriers and give other countries a chance to participate in the global economy. It’s not as simple as this for the poorest of the poor; I’ll explain in another post. But it’s a good start.
Principle 2: Government controlled anything is usually bad
Socialism is a smoke screen. It presumes governments are more efficient at allocating resources than the natural laws of supply and demand.
“The theory of the Invisible Hand states that if each consumer is allowed to choose freely what to buy and each producer is allowed to choose freely what to sell and how to produce it, the market will settle on a product distribution and prices that are beneficial to the all individual members of a community, and hence to the community as a whole.”
So, what does this mean? Let me give you an example. Lululemon decided to produce 100k pairs of yoga pants and sell those pants at $70 a pair. After awhile, Lulu realized that it could only sell 75k pairs at $70. The invisible hand dictates that Lulu will either reduce the number of yoga pants it produces next time or reduce the price of the pants to sell out the remainder. Now imagine thousands and thousands and thousands of those decisions happening all over the place all the time. Then you can comprehend why the government is incapable of playing that role. It is best left to the forces of the market. (We’ll talk about government regulation for a free and competitive market in my next post.)
Principle 3: Trade is a positive sum-game
This is hard to get, but it something to do with what is called Comparative Advantage. The basic premise of comparative advantage is countries benefit when each party specializes in producing goods and services that they can produce relatively more efficiently and trade for the other. Here’s an example from Wikipedia:
Imagine a city where the best lawyer happens also to be the best secretary, that is he would be the most productive lawyer and he would also be the best secretary in town. However it is quite clear that this lawyer would focus on the task of being an attorney by employing a secretary instead of doing all the paperwork by himself. This can easily be explained with the concept of comparative advantage: He is the best secretary and the best lawyer, however by comparing what he can earn as a secretary with the income he could earn by running a law firm and employing a secretary one can clearly see that the latter option is the better one.
When each country focuses on specializing in goods and services that they can comparatively produce more efficiently, the sum total is that both countries benefit. When a country isolates itself from the global trade, it hinders its ability to focus on its comparative advantage. “Trade creates wealth. Self-sufficiency is the road to poverty.”
Principle 4: Protectionism is never the answer
The way these obscure economic principles affect us is through the current debate on globalization and free trade agreements. Opponents of NAFTA will have you believe trade is bad for the US. It robs us of jobs and destroys towns. Free trade is not the problem and avoiding globalization is stalling the inevitable. NAFTA “adversely affected” 400,000 US jobs, but created over a 1M jobs. (US Govt; Commanding Heights) And as for Mexico, a country where 40% of the people live in poverty, trade with the US had multiplied by a factor of 7 from $40B to $280B in just 6 years.
Here’s the crux of the issue. When we restrict trade to “protect” industries, we prop up uncompetitive businesses. Doing so in the short-term “saves” jobs, but ends up costing the American people more in raised prices. There is a net loss in the process. You can go through the mathematical proof here.
Republicans don’t have it totally right either
The battle against trade isn’t really a battle against trade. We can sit here and mourn the loss of American automobile jobs, but in all honesty, we cannot compete with Japanese car manufacturers. You and I know this implicitly. We pick Civics and Camry’s over the Ford Focus and other pitiable American cars. Our Democratic leaders should focus less on denying the efficacy of free trade agreements and more on solutions to transition those workers and towns of exiting industries to new vocations valued in this global economy. That is what the Republican leaders of the past 7 years have failed to do in Michigan – a state with a declining GDP. Our Republican leaders have also under-invested in an education system to equip our students for the 21st century.
Adaptation and innovation are the keys to our future. Not isolation.
Other related content
For a basic primer on economics and economic history (b/c my explanations are pretty basic – I tried!), I suggest the three part video series Commanding Heights found here.
Click here for a virtual treasure trove of good essays on trade, including a couple by Krugman.
Michigan, Florida and caucuses
Should these states be counted? Is this even a serious question?
We live in a troublesome democracy, which unfortunately means we have this burden of actually allowing peoples in this said union to have their voices heard. It’s annoying, I know. It pains me every four years when the future of the world is decided by single states like Ohio. But thus is our plight until we un-annex the South and Midwest.
Also, a little known fact that CNN fails to mention prominently is that Obama and Edwards purposely took their names off the ballot in Michigan. I’m no schooled political pundit, but the obvious and likely reason is that they both suspected that they would lose there. They removed their names to “lessen” the blow and call it farcical when Clinton claimed victory.
Luckily, both camps are not arguing about whether there should be a do-over (because not counting Florida and Michigan would be undemocratic on multiple levels), but are now discussing how and when and in what format and who should foot the bill.
On caucuses
I have no specific opinions on this subject other than we should re-do elections, and they should be primaries. Any proposal by any camp to hold caucuses should be out-right rejected. In a fairer media, an equal amount of time would be spent on the nature of caucuses versus the controversy over super-delegates. But since caucuses help Obama, the issue has largely been ignored.
In a simple and efficient system like primaries, a person comes and casts a secret ballot. Votes are tallied and in Democratic races, delegates are apportioned proportionately. Seems smart. Seems efficient. Now let’s take a look at the antiquated caucus system in two states: Iowa and Texas.
Public voting at an Iowa caucus precinct
Reasons why Iowa caucus process is undemocratic
1. There is no absentee voting. So, if you’re working evenings, old and have a hard time being mobile, are taking care of kids and don’t have 2 hours to spare, are in the military and servicing us overseas, too bad; you’re out of luck.
2. Public voting. Need I say more? In Iowa, you show up and declare your vote in public. Apparently, we let peer pressure influence democracy in a very literal sense these days.
3. Clusters of inefficiency and lack of plurality. Apparently, when you show up to a precinct, you are suppose to form a group with folks who support your candidate. If the group does not achieve a certain number of individuals, the group must disband and form new groups until a sufficient number of people join the group. The number that determines sufficiency is based upon how many delegates are designated to that precinct. So for example, if your precinct has only 1 delegate. The group that has the most people wins regardless if the split was 34/33/33 among 3 candidates. Does this all sound lame and retarded? That’s because it is…
Texas Two-Step
In Texas, we start off with a primary contest of 126 delegates. Only individuals who voted in the primary process can return at 7pm that night to re-cast another vote for a candidate. The caucus portion accounts for a third of the delegates in Texas. A proponent of the caucus system would say it rewards the super passionate. I don’t know. Seems to me it rewards those with more time and no kids or job to tend to. Apparently, in this election year, caucus precincts were unable to accommodate the voter turnout, so people had to wait in 2 hour lines before writing their name down.
Maybe it’s time to “innovate” with a basic hole puncher and some scraps of paper.
Other related content
Iowa caucuses discourage participation by many voters
Race and Politics: the Overused Divide
Race. Overused. Misunderstood even by individuals within those specific ethnic groups. In this post, I aim to squash the perception that race plays an overwhelming factor in how these two groups vote and establish the precedent that Asians and Hispanics have supported Black candidates in the past, and therefore, would in the present and future. In fact, ideology and incumbency seem to play much larger role in voting behavior than race. (Surprise, surprise.)
Hispanics do support Black candidates
Let’s begin the discussion with the man for which the effect is named – Tom Bradley. In California, there are two very concentrated populations of Hispanic and Asian Democratic voters to analyze. One is LA where the Hispanic community represents 47% of the LA county. The other is comprised of the 9 counties that represent the Bay Area, where Asian Americans make up 19% of the region. I’m going to concentrate on the mayoral elections in those two areas mainly because I can’t find any data on any Congressional elections after sifting through days of Google results. If anyone can point me to a source, please ping.
Tom Bradley was the first African American LA mayor and the second black mayor in the US. As a political newbie, running a very grassroots campaign, he narrowly lost his first bid to incumbent Yorty in 1969. Four years later with more constituents aware of him, Bradley won the election with the help of the Black and Jewish communities and a “bare majority” of the Hispanic vote. (Source: Halley, Acock & Greene) What’s more fascinating is the Hispanic vote broke down along class lines – as the more well-to-do Hispanic voters seemed “less amenable to the coalition-of-minorities” argument.
I know some of my friends will scratch their heads and wonder how their own anecdotal evidence fits into the equation. They will point to cautionary tales of distant Hispanic/Asian relatives who threaten to disown their sons and daughters for bringing home a black significant other. And yes, I realize that my one data point doesn’t negate the fact that certain individuals within a group may be racist.
“There are large demographic differences between Likely voters and Other Adults.” [Exact quote from Public Policy Institute of California.]
There is a separation between the Democratic Primary Hispanic electorate and the Hispanic people as a whole. Primary voters, termed “likely voters,” represent a specific subset of the larger Hispanic population in California. In fact, Likely voters tend to be “older, more educated, and more affluent.” And then I want to point out that using anecdotal data is a lame as me saying “I know a Black person who once stole a car radio…” because it relies on the the basic notion that that one incident represents a much smaller and not necessarily representative sample of the group that you are drawing a comparison with.
To be crystal clear, Hispanic electorate is not the same as the Hispanic ethnic group. If you use anecdotal evidence, you portray patterns in the larger group and not necessarily the specific group that is voting. It’s a matter of data analysis.
Anyways, Tom Bradley went on to win 4 more mayoral elections and then ran to be California’s governor in 1982, which he lost. He led comfortably in the polls but lost each time in a nail biter. The effect was then defined as the behavior of white voters to support candidates while being polled but to vote another way in the booth.
So yes, Hispanic voters are willing to support Black candidates like Bradley that fit their ideological values in contrast to white candidates like Yorty (a conservative Democrat) . The idea that Hillary won the Hispanic vote 2 to 1 because a majority of Hispanic Democratic voters are prejudiced against black candidates seems silly.
Asians do support Black candidates
Well, let’s name off a couple of Black Bay Area politicians that have garnered the support of the Asian electorate over white candidates and sometimes even Asian ones: Willie Brown, Elihu Harris. Back in 60’s, Brown ran for his first office to the California State Assembly. He won the seat with a slight minority of the Asian American vote. Then during his 1999 SF mayoral election, he won with a 20 point margin over fellow Democrat Tom Ammiano with Chinese American voters casting ballots 2 to 1 in favor of Brown. (I’m not trying to be vague with election data. Information is incomplete and hard to find. If anyone has more data, please pass along.)
So, are we done with this nonsense yet? Are we going to stop making irrational statements in light of contrary evidence? People vote for people. Race may be a confounding factor, but is not nearly the 80% factor that it has been made to be in the California primaries. I do want to point out though that race does play a big part if the candidate belongs to your own ethnic group – the Black vote swung 2 to 1 in favor of Obama even in Hillary’s home state of NY. In LA’s mayoral race, the Latino vote was 3 to 1 in favor of Villaraigosa in early polling.
Moving beyond race
As I was sifting through election data, I found this fascinating poll prior to the LA mayoral election, which pitted Villaraigosa, the first Hispanic mayor in LA in over a century against Hahn. In his bid for the position, he trounced the incumbent mayor Hahn with a coalition of Hispanics, Blacks and Whites in every corner of the city. Only Asians remained loyal to Hanh. Here’s a poll, which helps explain why:
Wow. Experience vs. unity. It sounds like a familiar debate, no? Somewhat reminiscent of Obama vs. Hillary? It seems Asians care a lot more about experience than any other group – 13 points more than their white counterparts and 8 points more than their fellow Black voters. And on whether their leader can bring the community together, only 8% of Asian pollers indicated that was an important factor vs. ~20% in other groups.
Is this really a surprise to anyone? I mean a thousand years of Confucian ethnics, which hammer in the idea that age and experience trumps the young and unity. Unity? Consensus? Which Asian governments are emblems of these values? The totalitarian one in China? This is conjecture on my part, but I’m going to make the argument that Asians do indeed value experience more and the concept of unity as a leader is quite foreign and at times at odds with the way they grew up. Asian parents bark orders and their Asian kids respect it. Let’s sit around and talk about our feelings and how we can all get along…hhhmm…doesn’t happen.
Okay, I’m done. Done and done. No more race wars. On to more constructive matters…
leave a comment