I hate Terry McAuliffe

He is the worst. He was chair of the DNC when the Dems were at their worst. He's been on the news pretty much nonstop for the past couple weeks. Talking Points Memo has an epic montage of his antics these past couple weeks...


This reminds me of someone. Oh yah...

Erin Burnett is the only thing of value on CNBC

The last couple posts have got me going on corporations acting all corporationy, so I thought I'd put my two cents in on investing and the stock market before I get back to other issues like Bush quitting golf as his sacrifice for the troops (not kidding). I don't pretend to know a lot about finance or the stock market, but I know a few things about what makes a business successful and human nature. CNBC and mutual funds have ruined Wall Street. The New York Stock Exchange used to be a place where good businesses with good business plans and a viable position in the market could go to gain capital to grow their business. In the past 20 years, Wall Street has moved away from this model and moved towards a place where people prey on the information disadvantaged.

The moron talking heads on CNBC and the douche bag mutual fund managers sitting in their postmodern offices talk up certain stocks and the value skyrockets even though people who are intimate with the industry and the company know that the stock is grossly overvalued. They have developed sophisticated software that can show that any and all stocks will be valuable if you just "buy and hold." What a crock of shit. Everyone knows that you can manipulate any group of numbers to tell you whatever you want. They will sell you on these horrible stocks and drive the price up then either they personally or their big clients will sell it short and the mom and pop investors will get the royal screw job. Their bottom line comes first, you come second, ALWAYS.

Basically, unless you have enough money to buy enough shares that you will get the CEO's ear or you are so knowledgeable of a specific industry that you can personally asses a company's value and plan, do not bother in Wall Street. Don't listen to those blathering idiots on CNBC (Bloomberg isn't any better, just because they have British accents doesn't make them smarter) or any mutual fund manager trying to sell you stock. Be smart. Know your knowledge disadvantage and invest in bonds or a stock that will pay you dividends that are higher than a bond payout.

He's not the first person to bring this up, but O.G. Mark Cuban has more insight into this.

Jonathan Schwartz is on the cutting edge of technology, but not hairstyles

For an Advanced PR Writing class, we were assigned to analyze a Fortune 500 company's blog. I chose Sun Microsystem's CEO and ponytail aficionado Jonathan Schwartz's blog. It is an interesting foray into blogging by one of the most tech savvy businessmen in the world. His blog is frequently read and cited in the media (here, here). However, I should note that I am an avid reader of Mark Cuban's Blog Maverick, which is the end all, be all of tech business CEO blogs, IMHO, and I cannot help using that as a reference in my analysis.

Overall impression: Clean layout. Not too cluttered, but enough graphics to grab my attention. Written in a conversational tone with lots of links. First impression is positive.

Ease of finding - 10: Popped up immediately on a Google search for "sun microsystems blog" and it is front and center on the Sun homepage. Sun seems to have invested quite a bit in their blog.

Frequency - 9+: Jonathan posts relatively regularly on his blog (roughly once a week). The material is fresh and he doesn't seem to "force" blog posts. He only posts when there is actually something interesting to mention. I put the plus because Jonathan's blog is just the tip of a massive iceberg that is Sun Microsystem's blogging network. Currently, there are 4,297 blogs on the network. Any employee can set up a blog about any topic with just a few clicks. It's pretty remarkable and shows Sun's commitment to community involvement in technological innovations.

Engaging writing - 7: Jonathan writes in a conversational tone, but he does not deviate from specific topics regarding the acquisitions and mergers of Sun. Granted, this is the bulk of his work, but it would be a more effective blog if he strayed from the topic and discussed issues more broadly and possibly personal issues. It is well written and gives a good insight into the rationale for many of the company's actions, but he fails to humanize himself or upper echelon of Sun's management.

Focused - 9: Jonathan gives a great insight into the actions of the mergers and acquisitions of Sun and he stays focused on that issue pretty diligently. As I just stated, he could easily veer off topic a little bit and improve his blog.

Relevant: - 8: Jonathan's blog gives great insight into Sun's corporate actions, but again if you want insight into the future of the industry or the daily life of a tech CEO, this blog is not relevant at all. However, it is very relevant for the shareholders and investors of Sun. This is a great place to understand the major steps the company you are investing in is taking. Jonathan does an excellent job of instilling confidence in Sun shareholders.

Honest - 7: I love the rationale Jonathan gives for Sun's actions, but he fails to address the drawbacks of his actions. He gives an honest account of the positives of their actions, but it would be a more effective blog if he gave recognition to people that disagreed with the company position and alleviated those concerns. Part of this is due to the fact that Jonathan does not want to present a company that is divided to its shareholders. This might cause insecurities (pun intended).

Interactive - 10: People comment frequently on Jonathan's posts, but most of the comments are by employees. As I said earlier, it is simple to create a blog on the Sun network. This interactivity shows the commitment that Sun has to OpenSource and having the entire internet community help foster innovation.

Responsive - 8: Jonathan does not respond directly to comments, but after looking a little bit he does comment on other blogs. I feel that most of the comments on his blog are positive and don't nessesitate a response.

Overall - 68/80: Again, I think that Jonathan's blog does a great job of reflecting Sun's commitment to being a transparent company, but I think that if he wants to reach out an audience besides shareholders, he should broaden the range of topics and types of posts a la Cuban or this satirical blog. Also, get rid of that effing ponytail. You look like a tool.

Here is the wiki of Fortune 500 blogs.

Why Hillary Lost

Finally, this headache is over. I've tried to keep my criticisms of Hillary to a minimum (There are many. Try to find my anonymous blog if you want a more honest, and vulgar, opinion :) ), but I am elated that the nomination process is essentially over and Obama can no longer be "caucus blocused" anymore. There has been a little pep in my step the past couple days as I hum Obama's new campaign song, Jay-Z's "99 Problems."

In the aftermath, the pundits (here, here) have been trying to explain why Clinton lost. Here's my take:

5. Too little, too late

It wasn't until she was well into the campaign that she began making the argument that she would be the best candidate to defeat the Republicans. As of Iowa/NH, it was a foregone conclusion that whoever would be the Democrat's nominee would win the presidency. So, all the candidates were trying to position themselves as the best president, not the best general election candidate. However, IMHO, McCain was the best candidate out of the Republican field to win the general election because of his centrist views and defeating a Republican became an issue only when he won the nomination. Hillary had a viable argument that she was the best candidate to defeat the Republicans, although I disagree. If she had made a more concerted effort to initially position herself as the only candidate that would lock up a win against a centrist Republican earlier, she would have fared much better.


4. She didn't unequivocally denounce her vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

IMHO, the most prominent issue for Democrats (the general election is another story) is the war in Iraq. There was a clear definition between Obama and Clinton on this issue. She ran on a platform of experience, but she supported the worst foreign policy decision since Bush the First ate that week old sushi. Read her speech. It shows rational, reasoned thought, but no conviction. So much for her three "cojones." I remember watching that speech on C-SPAN at like 2:30 a.m. and thinking "You could have been a contender!"


3. Hubris

This word gets thrown around a lot, but it is the downfall of 99% of politicians and 100% of the New England Patriots. Hillary and her staff felt a sense of entitlement, but entitlement doesn't win Super Bowls. Ask Bill Belichick. Why would it win elections? THAT'S WHY YOU PLAY THE GAME! She loaded her staff with old friends that wound up hurting her because of their ties ties to organizations that were working directly against Hillary's positions *cough* *cough* Mark Penn *cough*. She thought she was going to have it wrapped up by Super Tuesday and had zero strategy otherwise. She basically skipped the caucus states. All these things line up to the fact that she thought she was entitled to the presidency, but we know what happens to best-laid plans of mice and men.


2. Who is Hillary Clinton?

Hillary had a terrible problem telling the truth. Why did she lie about landing in sniper fire? Why did she lie about her being named after Sir Edmund Hillary even though she was born before he climbed Everest? Why did she lie about Chelsea being in lower Manhattan on 9/11? Why did she oppose the Columbian FTA when her chief strategist's firm was lobbying for the Columbian government in Congress? People could not trust her. All politicians pander to public sentiment, but there's a clear line between saying lies that can easily be refuted and having a balanced, nuanced position that be harder to refute. My mom says my little brother says lies that he knows that my mom knows so he can get caught and get attention. The similarities between HillDog and my little bro are numerous, but I'll leave that for another post.

I feel that the only time she was really honest with the American people was that infamous moment on the bus in New Hampshire and she won New Hampshire.



1. Barack Obama is a G.
Obama was a better candidate. She may have made some mistakes in her campaign, but she did not lose this campaign. Obama won it.

Two Candidates and a Sports Analogy

During Obama's Meet the Press interview, he was on point per usual. He gave articulate nuanced answers to Russert's usual rash of questions that must have kept Russert's research team up all week. Obama stayed on message and his unique message is going to drive him to victory as long as he controls the debate. Kingpin James Carvile sums it up, "He had the greatest fastball anybody had seen, and now it's 'Hey man, can you throw a change-up?' He needs another pitch in his repertoire." That ability to frame the debate, Obama's change-up, will decide this election.

George W. Bush and, specifically, Karl Rove are excellent at this. Watch Bush's appearance on Meet the Press in November of 1999 while he was running for president:



Granted, this was much earlier in the campaign, but Russert asked his usual type of questions. Bush not only answered them articulately and nuanced, but he had a simple clear message that he wanted the viewers to take away, "restoring honor and dignity to the office." He says about a half dozen times. This message resonated perfectly for the times following the Lewinsky scandals. He also did an excellent job of this in 2004. Remember "Steady leadership in a time of change"? I bet you do.

What was Obama's take away message? If someone asked me what I remember from Bush's Meet the Press interview (which I bet was exactly like every interview he did) I could tell you precisely, but if someone asked about Obama's interview I could give a convoluted series of policy positions which would probably be wrong.

If Obama's gunna strike out McCain, he's got to command the plate and you can't command the plate with just the high heat. Throwing 99mph fastballs all season will leave you with a worn out arm come time for the Fall Classic.

C'mon, Bubba. You're better than this.

NBC's Chuck Todd details how Bill Clinton completely underestimated the 21st century media. I know Clinton hasn't run a campaign since 1996, but he should be well aware of the internet's influence on the political scene. Lest he forget, it was was an internet "gadfly," Matt Drudge, which broke the Lewinsky scandal in 1998.

Todd outlines a series of events in the 2008 campaign that Bill could have easily avoided if he had an understanding of the new media. The one most striking to me is when Bill brought up Hillary's sniper fire comment weeks after it had mostly died in the media. This "YouTube moment" shows a critical feature of 21st century media: The news cycle has shortened considerably. At the point of Bill's speech in Indiana, Hillary had made an appropriate response and the media was already talking about "bitter" and Carter meeting with Hamas. Hillary's trip to Bosnia was still in the mind of voters, but it was fading with the lessened media coverage. (Bill also didn't help the cause by numerous factual errors in the speech). When the news cycle has passed. let sleeping dogs lie.

C'mon, Bubba. You led this country through its largest economic growth since WWII and you are the best public speaker this country has seen in decades. Please, learn from your mistakes and don't let yourself be dragged down by the same medium that tried to take you down in 98.