Obama's Words (Still) Speak Louder Than Actions

"In the military, as in any organization, giving the order might be the easiest part. Execution is the real game." - Russel Honore.

President Obama's soaring speeches essentially got him into the White House. His DNC 2004 keynote speech first won him national attention.  Then a couple of "Hope and Change" oratories with mix and match phrases were key to his 2008 primary and general election victories. He also has a great sense of humor, which makes his White House Correspondents Dinner addresses and appearances on Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert shows like on Dec. 9, '14 worth watching. His policies haven't appeased most Republicans but they're quite centrist and track majority opinion fairly well. So what's his biggest problem?

His weakness per my March 2013 post is in poor implementation, neglecting routine administration, and not anticipating and addressing problems before they become critical.  When faced squarely with a crisis or challenge Obama marshals his faculties and resources to rise to the occasion. That's how he outplayed Hillary Clinton in 2008, dealt with Hurricane Sandy effectively in 2012 just before his re-election, recovered from the awful start of the HealthCare.gov website, and so on. But the Executive-in-Chief should execute well in general, not just in firefighting mode.

The President cannot do everything, so he needs to pick the right people to work under him, track their performance, press them to improve where needed, and replace them quickly if they don't. Obama here is no worse - and probably better - than "heckuva job, Brownie" G.W. Bush.

But he falls well short of Bill Clinton whose operational excellence was a largely unsung and under appreciated aspect of his presidency. Not only did the cogs of the day to day government machinery run smoothly then, but major programs took off without hiccups. Examples in health care are the Clinton launch of children's health insurance program and the overhaul and immense improvement of the Veteran's Health Administration (VA).

And how is Obama doing now, as compared to his earlier years? Significantly better in some aspects. Examples:

• In health care he finally dispensed with Kathleen Sebelius and appointed the far more competent Sylvia Burwell as health secretary. The lackluster CMS chief Marilyn Tavenner is also gone. A post 2013 team along with Accenture now running HealthCare.gov has immensely improved operations including enrollments under ACA (Obamacare). 
• Janet Napolitano is gone as Secretary of Homeland Security, replaced by a much better Jeh Johnson since December 2013. One change I personally noticed is the much quicker processing of international flight passengers at our JFK and Newark airports. The hour plus long lines have now decreased to a wait of 20 minutes or less.
• U.S. postal services have improved some services, e.g., with insurance and tracking already included in Priority Mail packages.  More outlets like Staples now sell products and accept postal packages. 

There are still visible shortcomings, ranging from the trivial and irritating ones I see in my daily domestic life to those of national importance. Examples:

• The streams of unwelcome phone calls from marketers, including robo-calls on Do-Not-Call registered land line and mobile phones has become even worse. The FTC seems totally unresponsive to complaints, and this has made marketers more brazen in flouting this one very welcome law passed in the G.W. Bush presidency. Even authentic information about U.S. based scammers and violators contained in complaints seems to disappear into a black hole. Although the FTC is an independent agency, its Bureau of Consumer Protection works closely with the Department of Justice. So the Obama Administration through Eric Holder's Department of Justice can and should get them to go after violators much more vigorously. Let's see if Holder's chosen successor (currently nominee Loretta Lynch awaiting Senate approval) turns out to be better in this regard.
• U.S. post offices still don't display prices for common services like rates for domestic and international mail and packages. You can ascertain these piecemeal at automated stations, but these should be displayed for quick information and comparison. Why isn't this done on now so inexpensive electronic displays that can be readily updated when rates change? Plus the USPS is still losing money. A competent administrator should be improving efficiency and reversing past giveaways in pensions and benefits instead of trying to curtail services, like Saturday mail delivery.
• Highly paid West Coast dock workers in a labor dispute are crippling the supply chains for many American businesses and hurting our economy. Yet Obama's administration is dragging its feet on ordering an end to this work stoppage. In contrast, the Canadian government moved to end a rail strike there, prompting the management and the union to quickly resume operations and agree to arbitration. 

In foreign relations there are lapses in policy as well as execution pertaining to the Middle East and Ukraine:

• An Oct. 9,'14 Reuters report describes Obama's rejection of proposals of his senior advisers to intervene in Syria and Iraq that allowed ISIS to expand. Though liberals may defend his initial restraint, there's little excuse for the poor execution of his subsequent decision to intervene militarily, support forces against ISIS, etc. 
• Obama's hesitance to help Ukraine militarily in countering Russian backed separatists has contributed to Ukraine's rout and loss of strategic towns in recent battles. He argued against supplying lethal weapons on the grounds that this will further antagonize Russia and kill off peace talks.  I'd have expected an effective administration to at least be feverishly positioning such arms for rapid transfer and deployment if peace fails, and to be covertly training Ukrainians in their use. After all, Russia and the separatists have repeatedly violated prior agreements. Instead, the Middle East problems of US military help coming too little, too late seems to apply to Ukraine as well. 

Some of these outcomes could have been different under a better Secretary of Defense. Obama has at least appointed the well regarded Ashton Carter as the new Secretary who emphasized competence and effectiveness after being sworn in.

In sum, the Obama Administration functions better now than till 2013, though there is still ample room for improvement in his remaining second term.  I also hope that his successor after 2016 is more into good governance from the start.

Execution Vs Policy

In his second term President Obama's Administration should do a better job of day to day administration in which some of his departments fell short.  But first some background.

When Snowstorm Nemo dumped two feet of snow in our town of Danbury CT on Feb. 9 we had a couple of pleasant surprises.  First, our local roads were quickly and efficiently cleared thanks to Mayor Mark Boughton's workforce and similarly our highways by state crews under Gov. Dannel Malloy.  Second, unlike in past storms we didn't suffer major and widespread power outages. This may be partly due to better preventive operations like cutting trees threatening overhead power lines.  Gov. Malloy replaced the power company's management in Oct. 2011 when 70% of the state's homes lost power for several days, and he pushed for better preparedness against future storms.

 The point is, both Republican Mayor Boughton and Democrat Gov. Malloy enjoy high approval ratings and support from the same set of voters among us.  It's not so much because of their policies as for their efficient execution and running a responsive day to day administration.  In a Democratic leaning Danbury I've seen Mayor Boughton win with two thirds of the vote over his Democratic opponent in the past three elections, and deservedly so. 

At a national level good execution was a big reason for President Clinton's success and popularity.  For example his administration transformed veterans hospitals (VHA) from "dangerous, dirty, scandal-ridden" institutions to ones delivering "the highest quality care in the country."  In general I just remember feeling that the branches of federal government though imperfect ran more smoothly and efficiently during his tenure.

President George W. Bush on the other hand (in Paul Krugman's words) had a reverse Midas touch - everything he touched turned into crud.  It wasn't just his wrong decision to invade Iraq, but the faulty planning and execution of the war and its aftermath that turned it into a costly debacle.  Who can forget the "Heck of a job, Brownie" handling of Hurricane Katrina?  Unlike Clinton, GWB tended to appoint cronies based on personal relationships and ideology rather than on ability, which compounded his lack of natural ability to govern effectively.  The financial crisis of 2008 had complex roots including policy failures by the Fed's Alan Greenspan and Clinton's Secretary of Treasury Robert Rubin's earlier deregulation leading to risky bank behavior.  But there was an execution aspect as well, like allowing Lehman Brothers to collapse like it did leading to a domino effect.  To be fair though, GWB made some amends by appointing William Gates as Secretary of Defense, and Ben Bernanke as Fed Chairman.

In India one of the most admired (and controversial) leaders is Narendra Modi, the long serving Chief Minister (equivalent to Governor in the US) of Gujarat state.  He is widely regarded as a Hindu zealot suspected of encouraging the 2002 anti-Muslim riots that killed 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus.  Yet it's his efficient and clean administration with a progressive outlook that has raised Gujarat's fortunes and made even secular minded voters look upon him favorably as a possible future Prime Minister of India.  In contrast, I agree with much of the philosophy and ideals of Congress Party's Sonia Gandhi with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. But the ineptitude and corruption pervading their administration has alienated even staunch supporters of their Party.  

People standing for elections and the voters deciding amongst them tend to set more store on policy declarations and the likeability factor ("whom would you more like to have a drink with").  Their ability to execute takes a back seat or at least isn't evaluated in depth.  That's fine for legislative roles since Senators and Congressmen are charged with setting policy and laying down laws, but not so much for Presidential and governor races.  After all, for elections to the "Executive" branch of government, shouldn't the ability to "execute" well be a crucial criteria? 

This brings me back to the Obama Administration whose score card in implementing laws and execution has been mixed.  President Obama seems more into speeches and broad ideas, without Bill Clinton's knack of keeping tabs on implementing laws, administrative efficiency and effectiveness.  (Obama fans may dispute this by pointing to his personal involvement in those drone kill lists, but I distinguish that one bit of micromanaging from general emphasis on administrative effectiveness.)  Obama's remoteness means that the performance of his departments depended on who he chose to head them. 

One reason I rooted for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primaries was her better grasp of the issues (which also helps in administering well) and her being the other half of the Clinton team of 1992 - 2000.  Obama made her Secretary of State where the attack on an unprotected US mission in Benghazi is an exception to her overall sterling performance.  Obama also got Bin Laden of course, and did solidly in continuing the appointments of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. His other good choices in his first term were Leon Panetta for CIA and later Defense, and Arne Duncan for Education.  He did well in areas under national spotlight like restoring the effectiveness of FEMA and responding to Hurricane Sandy on the eve of his re-election.

In other departments his choices left something to be desired, and Obama so far hasn't matched Clinton's ability to spot and tighten under-performers whose actions are less in the  news.  While minor in themselves these add up to how his administration impacts the everyday lives of ordinary Americans.  Here are some examples including what I've seen and experienced at first hand:

• FCC and the do-nothing Do Not Call registry.  George W. Bush did something right when in 2003 his administration started the Do Not Call registry to save us from those nuisance marketing calls. Getting on that list is easy and over three fourths of Americans have registered for it. The penalties of up to $11,000 and $16,000 per violation should be enough to deter offending marketers.  The problem is that the FTC and the FCC who are supposed to act on complaints of violations do so little about it.  Consumer complaints have poured in with 212,000 in April 2012 alone, but the enforcement penalties have been a measly $5.6 million to date in the most prominent of violations. I've personally filed scores of complaints after digging out the identities and contact information of the callers (no easy task as they know they're violating the DNC) and heard nothing back.  What's the use of having laws if the FTC as well as the FCC does so little to enforce them?  I see robo-callers and marketers increasingly emboldened and flouting the law, and get half a dozen of these calls on many days.  I'm glad FCC Chairman Jules Genachowski is leaving.  Now if only Obama can get his successor to better mind day to day enforcement in parallel with those "bigger" anti-trust and policy issues.

• Homeland security and airport entry.  I marvel at the speed at which the hordes of incoming international passengers are processed at Mumbai and Delhi airports in "third world" India.  They have about 40 immigration counters open, and even with several planeloads arriving simultaneously the longest I've had to wait in the last half a dozen visits has been 40 minutes.  In Europe and the Middle East it's been much faster - never longer than 10 minutes.  In contrast, the last four times I've entered the US at JFK or Newark airports the wait has been at least an hour, even though the number of incoming passengers is a fraction of those in India.  The reason?  They seem to consistently have too few agents at the counters, with most of these closed. I've felt particularly bad for women with babies and young children who had to struggle through this as there is no separate quicker processing for them.  Surely the Homeland functionary sitting in Washington DC who oversees airport entry could have video feeds from the processing halls of all major airports to see these long lines.  It speaks poorly of Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano and her deputies who directly supervise this.  My complaints and suggestions in this regard have been met with stock responses from underlings of the very official at these airports who is responsible for such laxity.  

• US Postal Services (USPS).  We have excellent mail carriers for our home, as is the staff at our local post office.  But here are some experiences pointing to management miscues.
•  Our local post office no longer displays prices of standard products like first class mail, priority mail, express mail, international mail or passport processing.  True, you can find them at the automated kiosk or once you talk to a postal clerk but there's often a line for both of these.  So it wastes time when you cannot think and plan in advance while waiting in the line and slows customer processing from the post office's viewpoint.  The only rates I see are of overpriced stationery products like envelopes and boxes that you can buy for a third of the price at Staples or Office Depot.
• Three years ago I went to our area's 24/7 automatic postal station after regular manned working hours to buy stamps for mailing some letters to India.  But the menu of choices on the kiosk screen did not include mailing to foreign destinations, nor dispense stamps for an amount I wanted to specify.  So I had to go back home, look up the rate information on the internet and use stamps at home before dropping off the letters.  The problem? A glitch in their software upgrade that may well have affected automated stations in many parts of the country.  This problem persisted for several weeks, if not months.
• To lower costs a lot of USPS mail boxes have been removed all over the US in the past years, so they're typically a couple of miles apart in our Danbury area.  That's fine.  The one closest to our home by the roadside is a drive-up with a protruding slot in which we can drop off letters without needing to get out of the car.  It was damaged 4 years back and replaced with one without the protruding lip (that costs may be $50 extra) so that everyone using it had to park and get out of the car to use it.  It took them two years to affix that lip and I'm thinking of the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of times users had to be inconvenienced in this time. 
• When our daughter Rubina was getting married I went to a privately run authorized post office which was open later than our main office in Danbury. I showed the agent our wedding invitation cards being mailed within and outside the US.  He determined the postage due, sold the stamps, helped affix these and accepted the cards for delivery.  Ten days later some of these came back to our address (apparently from some sorting facility) for insufficient postage.  Because they were square in shape, not rectangular, they asked for 17 cents extra.  So the mail sorters acted at odds with the counter sales person working for the same organization, wasting our time and effort in the process. 

There's hope.  When Obama first entered the White House he didn't have any executive experience unlike Clinton who had been governor of Arkansas.  Now with four plus years under his belt Obama can do better in performing the "ordinary" but important role of government.

The (Lack Of?) Mind Of The Voter

Both Democrats and Republicans have die hard core constituencies. They each average almost a third of the voters, with the proportions varying in Blue and Red states, and rarely stray from their party. Both parties can rely on these bases, so long as they to turn out to vote.

In Republican Scott Brown's surprise victory over Martha Coakley for the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat it was the swing of independent voters towards Brown that made the difference. This was unexpected in a solidly Democratic constituency when most voters knew about the high stakes involved in giving Republicans the 41st "filibuster enabling" Senate vote.

What led to this voter behavior? Pundits talk about dissatisfaction with the economy and lack of jobs, anger at a do-nothing government (even though Republicans as a block were largely responsible) and anxiety over "bad" health reforms. I've this to add:

• Trivials can matter a lot. Scott was out there campaigning vigorously. He was in front of the cameras. He is telegenic. Martha was lax. She celebrated her Christmas at home and shunned "standing in the cold" at Fenway Park. She flubbed with some silly sports comments. She took voters for granted. So they punished her.

• Do not underestimate voters - part 1. That is, underestimate their ability to make wrong judgments or outright mistakes. Americans re-elected George Bush in 2004. I supported Joe Lieberman in 2006. Democrats chose Obama over Hillary in 2008 (okay, I couldn't resist this cheap shot.) They do that - just take it in stride.
• Do not underestimate voters - part 2. That is, underestimate their ability to blame the wrong people. The economic and jobs debacle was created in GWB's time (with some roots going as far as in Clinton's time.) AIG was bailed out along with Wall Street players with 100% coverage of counterparty commitment also during the Republican era. Obama's administration and Congress opted for too small and misdirected a stimulus package despite Paul Krugman's early and repeated warnings because of solid Republican (and some Blue Dog) obstruction. Ditto for the long and torturous evolution of the convoluted health reforms bill. But voter anger is rewarding the bad guys.
• But there are hopeful lessons, including from elsewhere. In India voters are often ignorant and seem irrational. Convicted murderers, bandits and thugs have been elected as Members of Parliament. In some states corrupt and inept governments are successively elected for decades at a stretch. Voters frequently are driven by very narrow considerations (like caste) that don't reflect their larger interests and longer term preferences. But in the last election last year even they seem to have rewarded the Manmohan Singh / Sonia Gandhi Congress government for trying to do the right thing. People are the same. If Indian voters with a 66% literacy rate and under 1.5% of US per capita income can ultimately "get it", then why not US voters?

So it's good for the Obama administration to read the Massachusetts outcome to adjust strategy and message as Bob Herbert suggests in his NYT OpEd today. But they shouldn't be spooked away from bold policy initiatives. Obama said as much in his State of the Union speech today, and we'll know soon enough how much he means it.

Surprising Detractors Of Economic Recovery Plan

Yesterday in the Wall Street Journal I saw a full page ad by the conservative Cato Institute slamming the whole concept of Obama's economic recovery plan. This (apparently repeat) ad is signed by hundreds of economists and financial academics.

Denying the need for the "right" government stimulus plan seems so preposterous that I expected the signatories to be clueless economists from lightweight institutions. Or charlatans and political hacks who are selling debunked ideology for their narrow ends.

But I see Nobel laureates and prominent figures from top universities like "my" University of Chicago in this list. They include two renowned professors who were on my Ph.D. dissertation committee, and one of these professor's son-in-law who is a top academic in his own right. Why they have signed on is beyond me, as I totally subscribe to Paul Krugman's rationale of the need for massive governmental intervention to get us out of this economic crisis. Krugman actually argues that the current economic stimulus plan is too small and misdirected towards Republican causes to do the job.

On the Cato website there is more of this criticism of Obama and the Democratic efforts. On the lower right of this web page there is a YouTube presentation with sleazily deceptive arguments against the Obama / Democratic approach. Reagan's virtues are extolled while Obama's approach is likened (of all people) to that of George W. Bush whose overspending drove the economy to ruin.

I can't address all of the Cato fallacies here. But some comments:
(a) Heavy spending (and ill-conceived at that) in GWB's time could not counteract bad governance and lack of oversight that landed us in this mess.
(b) Japan's "lost decade" of stagnant growth in the 1990's is widely ascribed to its failure to quickly overhaul its ailing banks and credit infrastructure. That was a necessary condition that didn't happen, for other measures (like public spending on infrastructure) to work. Keep this in mind the next time you hear a Republican mouthing off on Japan's lost decade in spite of spending 6 trillion yen on infrastructure.
(c) We therefore need better governance and more regulation to complement a heavy fiscal stimulus.
(d) I'd heed Krugman and drop this nostalgia for Reagan. Even the "supply side" linkage that Republicans like to make between tax cuts and revenue increases in the Reagan era is misconceived.
(e) Reagan's nearer term focus and budget deficits created cumulative problems that haunted his successor.
(f) In the debate on stimulus options tax cuts have the value of immediacy as they get more money across to the consumer quickly. But the recession-wary consumer may save rather than spend most of it (a personal virtue but it defeats the objective of a stimulus.) Government projects and continuing grants to cash-strapped state and local governments on the other hand will spend the allocations dollar for dollar.
(g) To my knowledge none of the Cato signatories warned against the consequences of insufficient regulation of mortgage lenders, or deplored Alan Greenspan's role in opposing such regulation. Nor did they see the housing crisis and the bursting of the bubble coming. Krugman did all three and years ago, way before it happened. So to me he deserves his 2008 Nobel prize (officially given for unrelated research done decades earlier) as well as greater credibility than the Cato crowd.

While our University of Chicago is synonymous with the ideas of free markets and deregulation we had plenty of faculty teaching and researching the concepts of necessary government oversight and intervention, public goods and anti-trust responsibilities. I'm perplexed to see so many respected economists including some of my U. of C. professors having signed on to the Cato ad. I hope they have better arguments than the YouTube presentation on the Cato website.
Meanwhile, today's (Feb. 10) issue of The Journal has the more nuanced views of two other U. of C. economists, Nobel laureate Gary Becker and Prof. Kevin Murphy. In "There's No Stimulus Free Lunch" they concede that government stimulus measures can create net jobs and expand GDP, especially during a recession. At the same time they warn that such benefits will dissipate once the economy recovers and works closer to full capacity, and that such measures carry a price.

No one is arguing against that, or we'd have a permanent stimulus budget for every past, present and future year. The stimulus package is being worked now to fix our present recession and job losses. And that part about it not being absolutely "free", the question is, do we want to starve by forsaking a substantial lunch just because it carries a small price, or to go for it since the benefits far exceed the costs?

Does A President Need Principles?

A good thing about the upcoming elections is that either presidential candidate will be a huge improvement over Bush. The race is surprisingly close at this point, given Obama's highly successful foreign tour, favorable press coverage and inspiring speeches as compared to McCain's gaffes and senior moments. Many more voters view Democrats favorably as compared to Republicans. Obama is an inspirational speaker with quick wit and charm. He is also highly intelligent and organized.

Yet according to CNN's "Poll of Polls" today Obama is at 47% to McCain's 44% with 9% undecided. What gives?

One reason McCain is so close may be that he is still widely thought of as decent and principled despite his share of flip-flops. The Washington Post today carried a long article about how emotion and ambition have always guided McCain's behavior. But even such negative coverage may only humanize him and not tarnish his overall standing with voters.

Obama appeals to the idealism of his enthusiastic supporters with his message of change and hope. Yet in his life there seems little or nothing of principle he's done, or made sacrifices, that compromised his own interests.

Then there have been his rapid switches on issues after winning the Democratic nomination. These move him to the center or even into Republican territory, like his wooing of evangelicals and decrying a Supreme Court ruling against the death penalty in non-homicidal cases.

Such tactics while smart help shape perceptions. Half the voters (myself included) think Obama will do or say whatever gets him elected or furthers his personal interests. But even assuming that is true, how much does it matter? It largely depends on what the candidate hopes to achieve by becoming President.

The significance of being the first black / minority President shouldn't be lost on Obama. Here is his chance to go down in history as a great leader with path-breaking accomplishments. If that's his objective then his actions and decisions driven by pure self-interest will largely converge with what is good for the country. He will surround himself with good people, and take decisions on their merits in the national interest to secure his legacy.

Companies seek the smartest and most capable CEOs who are not necessarily nice guys. The system of compensation, rewards (and punishments in case of wrongdoing) tries to align the CEOs' self-interest with that of the companies.

This private company analogy can apply to Obama even if his incentives for being a good President are different. So while Obama has his core following of wide-eyed admirers it will be interesting to see how the preferences of the more skeptical swing voters unfold in the coming months.

Reagan Amidst The Democratic Race

I've always been underwhelmed by Reagan and wonder why he's so lauded by the Republicans. I was in India for most of the time he was President (that is, till August 1987) but read enough about international and US affairs to form an opinion about him even way back then.

His admirers say he "defeated" the Soviet Union and "won" the Cold War though they're quite vague about how he did it. Outspent the communists in an arms race? Dragged down the Soviets in Afghanistan by building up the Bin Ladens and the precursors to the Taliban against them? Some of these explanations for Reagan's supposed success sound quite bizarre. I think he was mainly lucky that enlightened leaders like Gorbachev realized the value of market driven systems and Democracy, and their reforms overlapped with Reagan's tenure. True, he didn't do anything stupid like GWB may have done in launching military adventures to re-unite the communist block against the US and halt their reforms. But that's hardly saying much.

On the domestic front, Reagan's policies were even less creditworthy. His tax cuts and build up of deficits created a temporary boom that borrowed against the future and pushed economic woes in the lap of his hapless successor, George H.W. Bush. I couldn't understand the Reagan nostalgia, but didn't have the words to articulate this. Then last year I came across this March 19, 2007 column by Paul Krugman in the New York Times which (to paraphrase Hillary) found my voice. He's since written many columns that drive the point of Reagan's fake legend home.

I'd have expected a literate and well-read person like Obama to have seen all this. So I was quite surprised like many others to see Obama compare Reagan and his Reagan years favorably to the Clinton years. I can understand his taking pot shots against Bill Clinton in order to get at his wife Hillary (I've always been skeptical about Obama's "clean campaign" promises) but this is the worst way to do so. Last night in the CNN Presidential debate in South Carolina Obama tried to qualify what he had said earlier, but it isn't enough. His comments prompted Krugman to write another column yesterday (January 21, 2007) about debunking the Reagan myth.

Last night Obama also took a cheap shot at Hillary mentioning he was doing all those grand things in the community while she was sitting on the corporate board of Wal Mart. Hillary returned the favor by referring to his work for a Chicago slum lord who is a campaign contributor. The exchange was unseemly and I may be prejudiced but Mr. (purported) Clean is the one who started it, and she'd have suffered if she had not retaliated.

So far Obama seems to be having it both ways on the racial front. He's winning the African American support simply because of skin color (even though ironically he doesn't share any of the typical African American history) and skillful references to issues like the Jena 6. Think about it - if all else was exactly the same, would Oprah have endorsed and campaigned for him the way she did if he was white? At the same time his other supporters don't yet seem turned off either by his subtle play of the race card, or by his lack of substance.

The polls show Obama will sweep South Carolina because of the African American vote, and I'd expect the Hillary camp to be braced for this. Hopefully, she'll be able to recover adequately for Super Tuesday on Feb. 5th when over half of the total delegates will be elected.

Unexpected Quarter Exposes Obama

Of late in regard to the Democratic primaries race I've been pleasantly surprised by Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics at Princeton and a top New York Times columnist. I've always admired his incisive logic, compelling reasoning and biting sarcasm that lays bare the bankruptcy of several Bush policies.

At the same time I thought Krugman would be too liberal to appreciate Hillary, and would instead favor more populist candidates like Obama and the "new farther left" John Edwards. Till some months back Krugman had been openly distrustful of Hillary, fearing for instance that she may be too beholden to drug companies and health insurers who have contributed to her campaign.

But he seems to have taken a lot of pains to understand each candidate's position and proposals on issues, and makes well-founded pronouncements. Hillary seems to have now won his respect, with the "turnaround" starting in September on healthcare issues. On the other hand, he has been increasingly troubled by Obama's stances on several hot button issues including approaches to the economy, healthcare, and social security. And I thought I was the only one who saw through Obama!

Seriously though, see Krugman's past five columns dating back to mid November that expose Obama's shallowness and policy shortcomings:

• Nov. 16, 07 Op Ed where he disses Obama for playing the sucker on the Bush / Republican hype of "reforming" (read curtailing) social security
• Nov. 30, '07 Op Ed on the major shortcoming of Obama's healthcare plan, and why Hillary and Edwards plans that mandate coverage are so much better
• Dec. 7, '07 Op Ed again attacking Obama's shortsightedness on healthcare issues
• Dec. 17, '07 Op Ed criticism of Obama's call to resolve all major issues through negotiations (though unlike Krugman I believe that some negotiations CAN yield very good results in areas like healthcare)
• Jan. 14, '08 Op Ed that praises Hillary's and Edwards' economic stimulus proposals while discounting those of Obama and the Republican field

In case you're wondering, I haven't "cherry-picked" Krugman's columns here, by omitting any since September 2007 that praise Obama or criticise Hillary. So there you have it. Paul Krugman sees through Obama's rhetoric and appreciates those offering more substance, even if they're centrists like Hillary who are not his natural allies. The question is: will the voters in general?

Daylight Saving Follies

I've never liked this Daylight Saving Time. The twice yearly disruptions are not worth the claimed 1% of energy savings (through less lighting) or the other purported benefits listed in a website tracking its history and rationale. Moreover, our power usage - and potential savings - on lighting is dropping as we switch to fluorescent bulbs that consume a fourth of the power of conventional incandescents.

Still, the maximum benefit of this time shift is during the height of summer. I tolerate the switches on the first Sunday of April and the last Sunday of October because it's at least in synch with most of Europe. But now George Bush slipped in a three week extension of this Daylight Savings Time in his Energy Policy Act of 2005 that took effect in 2007. So for three weeks this year we moved out of whack with Europe, causing problems on some international flights, plus other headaches like needing to install patches on computers and electronic gadgets. I don't expect the change to do any good either. Most of us turn on our lights on getting up in the morning in late October and late March so the benefit of "extra" light in the evenings is exactly zero.

Then there's the whole irony of the politics of distraction. An effective energy policy should include measures like higher mileage standards, higher gasoline taxes, or funding research and development of renewable energy sources. Instead the Bush administration comes up with meaningless "solutions" like moving the hands of our clocks out of step with other countries. Though a minor irritant, these actions also fit the "go it alone" GWB approach typified by his rejection of the Kyoto protocol and the invasion of Iraq.

There's one possible relief. In the 2005 Act the Congress retained the right to revert to the earlier Daylight Saving Time schedule if the changes prove unpopular or don't result in the expected savings. I'd like this reversal as soon as possible. To be forced to get up in the dark in the years ahead and be reminded of Bush is adding insult to injury.

The Right's Best Hope Is -- The Far Left?

Instead of sticking to my boring centrist stance let me project our past and upcoming presidential elections from the Right's standpoint.

The credit for our GWB's 2000 presidential victory goes largely to Al Gore himself. He gave the election to us by distancing himself from that Bill Clinton. Of course Ralph Nader, Jeb Bush's operatives in Florida and our Republican appointed Supreme Court gave some crucial support.

But in 2004 it was Howard Dean and his enthusiastic supporters who really helped our cause by forcing Kerry to veer sharply left to counter Dean in order to win the Democratic primaries. Thereafter Kerry never recovered enough ground to win the face-off with GWB. Our Karl Rove of course brilliantly helped in painting Kerry as a flip-flopper when he tried to return to the center.

The same dynamic may work this time around. Polls may not look too bright for our 2008 hopefuls, but it's still early. Democratic polls show Hillary pulling ahead of her rivals, but the General Election polls show her in a statistical dead heat with our Rudy Giuliani. Our far left and liberal friends may again come to our aid. They already see Hillary as too much of a centrist, and our labelling her as "calculating" has influenced many impressionable women and some men.

The New York Times and Jon Stewart's Daily Show are also helping us by regularly sniping at her and promoting Barack Obama. Just look at NYT's Maureen Dowd who is one of Hillary's fiercest critics and an Obama loyalist. Among her numerous efforts here's her nice attack of September 30 which cleverly lumps Hillary with GWB, and another piece of October 10. Even Paul Krugman who's been a thorn in our side has been undermining Hillary - the man has his uses.

Obama for his part was brilliant on the Jay Leno show on October 17, lobbing carefully rehearsed barbs while making them sound spontaneous. And they think Hillary is calculating! For example when asked if Hillary had taken an insurmountable lead he correctly pointed to how the Iowa polls outcome can change everything, then added "This is not a first time a leader has declared 'Mission Accomplished' and been proven wrong." In one stroke he portrayed Hillary as overconfident and lumped her with GWB. The enthusiastic young Leno audience exploded in laughter and applause.

Of course, Hillary is actually cautious and even paranoid about the primaries, and has never said or implied that she's sure about being nominated. But Obama has learned from our Karl Rowe and Dick Cheney - don't worry too much about being factual, and you can get a lot of mileage from inaccurate implications. Useful guy, this Obama. He can either weaken Hillary so Rudy (or maybe another GOP nominee) can beat her, or if he actually secures the Democratic nomination he'll be so much easier to beat. But Shhhhh, make sure to call him a tougher opponent to encourage Democrats to vote for him.

So take heart, Republicans. An enemy's enemy is a friend. Have faith, including in the liberal and far left factions. After all, they helped the American people choose our current President a second time. Why not this time around as well?

Scooter Pardon Musings

I have mixed feelings about how the Plame-Wilson-Libby affair has played out. The Libby pardon is hardly a surprise. GWB and Co. have done much worse in the past, and with the current 26% approval rating no longer have much of a reputation to protect. And one good shield deserves another. They owe it to their henchman to shield him from the consequences of shielding them from exposure.

I think about four aspects of the case.

First, it's about those who lash out at Bill Clinton for deploring the pardon because of his own rash of pardons near the end of his presidency. The two acts are different because Clinton didn't pardon anyone who was covering up for him or his administration.

Second, despite my occasional digs at Republicans it shows there are plenty of decent and straight ones around. Special prosecutor Fitzgerald and federal judge Walton are both Republicans and proved they're no hatchet men. Fitzgerald probably gave VP Cheney a break by not compelling damaging testimony from him under oath, but has been upstanding on the whole. Judge Walton didn't give Libby any undue breaks and it can even be said his sentence was on the harsher side.

Third, Libby may not be that bad a guy and one can empathise with his situation. He was put on the spot and lied or obstructed the investigation to protect the boss out of a sense of loyalty. He sacrificed himself knowing he could go to prison and no one would bail him out. (Oh, wait. )

Lastly, just like in that Clinton impeachment drama, probably too much has been made out of this case. The motive in exposing Plame wasn't revenge as much as an attempt to discredit Wilson's revelations by painting him and his wife as anti-GWB partisans. What was the damage done by outing Valerie Plame as a CIA agent? Probably only that she could never do a covert job again.

So can't it go this way: the Administration and the CIA say to Plame "oops, we're so sorry about goofing up on this. Here's $5 million (or $10 million) and a promotion to compensate you for our gaffe." End of story. Valerie's quite a babe and will improve the image of the CIA, so to speak. Those who feel taxpayers shouldn't pay so much for the Administration's mistakes should look at the billions of dollars of overspend on no-bid Iraq / Katrina contracts and other wastages inherent in the government. Also the special prosecutor's activities have cost more than this amount.

So in sum, while the Plame leak and Libby pardon affair confirms the seamy side of GWB-Vice politics, it's not that big a deal as to unduly exercise us.