Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

May 14, 2008
By: Kevin Drum

THE AMAZING MONEY MACHINE....Josh Green has an interesting piece in the Atlantic this month about Barack Obama's online fundraising machine. It's focused mainly on the technology behind the machine and how it sprang from the venture-capital oriented worldview of Silicon Valley, but this little nugget caught my eye:

And as a newcomer to national politics, [Obama] needed to establish credibility by making inroads to major donors — most of whom, in California as elsewhere, had been locked down by the Clinton campaign.

Silicon Valley was a notable exception. The Internet was still in its infancy when Bill Clinton last ran for president, in 1996, and most of the immense fortunes had not yet come into being; the emerging tech class had not yet taken shape. So, unlike the magnates in California real estate (Walter Shorenstein), apparel (Esprit founder Susie Tompkins Buell), and entertainment (name your Hollywood celeb), who all had long-established loyalty to the Clintons, the tech community was up for grabs in 2007. In a colossal error of judgment, the Clinton campaign never made a serious approach, assuming that Obama would fade and that lack of money and cutting-edge technology couldn't possibly factor into what was expected to be an easy race. Some of her staff tried to arrange "prospect meetings" in Silicon Valley, but they were overruled. "There was massive frustration about not being able to go out there and recruit people," a Clinton consultant told me last year. As a result, the wealthiest region of the wealthiest state in the nation was left to Barack Obama.

Furthermore, in Silicon Valley's unique reckoning, what everyone else considered to be Obama's major shortcomings — his youth, his inexperience — here counted as prime assets.

In a close race, you can point to pretty much anything as "the difference." But if Green is right, Clinton's neglect of Silicon Valley ranks as one of the biggest mistakes of her campaign. Obama may have been uniquely situated to take financial and political advantage of the boom in social networking sites, but I sort of doubt it. I'll bet Hillary could have done it too. She just didn't.

Kevin Drum 3:39 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (60)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

So over and over it seems as if Hillary's "strategy" was simply to stand there and say "it's me!"

Posted by: craigie on May 14, 2008 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

Stories like this feed my confidence she'll be ready on day one to be a pain in the arse to the Obama administration.

Posted by: Carl Nyberg on May 14, 2008 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

You have to be careful about dynasties. I've been leery of the Bush's for years. I think Obama's success is based on the fact that many people are not excited about a Clinton presidency.

My mother went to Punahou. If you know what that is, where it is, you'll know why she's a fan of his.

Heck, the dude's as old as my sister!

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on May 14, 2008 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

Finally, a post worth commenting on. Well done, Shithead!

Posted by: enozinho on May 14, 2008 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

Silicon Valley types like things that are new and different. Clinton is neither, Obama is both. Early adopters aren't going to buy a 1990s brand.

Posted by: Bush Lover on May 14, 2008 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, that might be fatal mistake #2. Fatal mistake #1 was ignoring the Democratic Primary rules vis-a-vis proportional delegates opposed to the GOP "Winner take all" rules. The proportional rule makes each state that much more competetive. A big state strategy won't work, but a 50-state stategy will.

See Howard Dean.

Posted by: brat on May 14, 2008 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, and a lot of early adopters bought Betamax, too.

Personally, I don't like either of them, and I really, really hate their amateur fans. You morons are going to give us John McCain. Morons. You are all morons. Every last one of you.

Posted by: ducking for cover on May 14, 2008 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

As I'm sure many others have pointed out, Obama is running the first 21st century campaign and Clinton is running the (hopefully) last 20th century campaign.

That Obama is winning should be no surprise.

aa

Posted by: aaron aardvark on May 14, 2008 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

Personally, I don't like either of them, and I really, really hate their amateur fans. You morons are going to give us John McCain. Morons. You are all morons. Every last one of you.

Cheer up, Ron Paul can run again in 2012.

Posted by: have clue -- will travel on May 14, 2008 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

"Obama is running the first 21st century campaign and Clinton is running the (hopefully) last 20th century campaign."

Precisely.

Posted by: cazart on May 14, 2008 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

Good post, and good follow on comment by Brat.

Thanks to you both...

Posted by: Detroit Dan on May 14, 2008 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

That's quite an amazing story.

Perhaps Clinton could have cultivated that are even better than Obama, too, despite the "young/fresh" vibe he has going for him that I'm sure appeals to some of the younger tech types, "new money" types, and entrepreneurs.

Posted by: Swan on May 14, 2008 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

No, I think everyone's misinterpreting.

Who cares who Silicon Valley millionaires decide to back? Does anyone really think they explain why Obama's rolling in cash and Hillary's not?

Obama's fundraising machine is based on tapping into millions of little people, each logging on to chip in a few dollars.

What does big-time Silicon Valley money have to do with that?

Unless you want to argue that rich techies used their internet savvy to clue him into a new way of funding national political campaigns.

But I don't see anyone saying that.

Posted by: Auto on May 14, 2008 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

"that are even better than Obama"

Sorry, supposed to be "that area".

Posted by: Swan on May 14, 2008 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

My mother went to Punahou. If you know what that is, where it is, you'll know why she's a fan of his.

Obama's prep school in Hawai'i.

Posted by: DJ on May 14, 2008 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

The claim that most of the Silicon Valley fortunes were created after 1996 is debateable, I think. On the tech side, there have been HP, Intel, AMD, Sun, Adobe, Amdahl, Intuit, Electronic Arts,
Dysan, Xidex, AutoDesk ... a long list of wildly-successful (each in its own time) companies that predate the .com bubble.

This place has been a money machine since 1975.
And of course, many of the biggest fortunes were made in real estate, not in tech.

Posted by: joel hanes on May 14, 2008 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

But if Green is right, Clinton's neglect of Silicon Valley ranks as one of the biggest mistakes of her campaign.

And McCain's embrace of Meg "I screwed up eBay" Whitman and Carly "no American has a right to a job" Fiorina won't do him any favors around here, either. Those two are almost universally reviled around here - especially Fiorina, who basically jettisoned HP's corporate values in the name of keeping up with Wall Street - a move that was neither necessary nor wise..

Posted by: F'in Librul on May 14, 2008 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

But if Green is right, Clinton's neglect of Silicon Valley ranks as one of the biggest mistakes of her campaign.

And McCain's embrace of Meg "I screwed up eBay" Whitman and Carly "no American has a right to a job" Fiorina won't do him any favors around here, either. Those two are almost universally reviled around here - especially Fiorina, who basically jettisoned HP's corporate values in the name of keeping up with Wall Street - a move that was neither necessary nor wise..

Posted by: F'in Librul on May 14, 2008 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

Some of her staff tried to arrange "prospect meetings" in Silicon Valley, but they were overruled.

This is the story of the Hillary Clinton candidacy - clueless leadership imposing mistaken tactics and strategy. She pissed away a hugely commanding political position through bad decision after bad decision. If Dubya was born on third base and thought he hit a triple, Hillary's husband carried her there, whereupon she got tagged out trying to steal home plate.

Posted by: jimBOB on May 14, 2008 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary had no chance in Silicon Valley unless her opponent was John McCain or another similarly embalmed candidate. The Valley is loaded with young, scientific brainiacs who were completely against the Iraq invasion, and Obama was the only candidate who offered the judgement and courage to oppose the mindless CW of Bush, Hillary, McCain and their ilk. Didn't hurt that he's youthful, athletic and cool.

Here's his debut at Google, with attendant adulation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4yVlPqeZwo

Posted by: Dilbert on May 14, 2008 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

This is just another in a long line of stories showing how Obama is just like Jesus. But I used the banner ad at the top of the page to give McCain a few bucks.

Posted by: on May 14, 2008 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

I think it's ideology too. Joe Trippi's decentralized populism with small donors would be a kind of shift for someone who's whole career has been about appealing to rich, connected high donors and bundlers.

Howard Dean has more in common with Obama than HRC...

Posted by: JJ on May 14, 2008 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

I think you might want to Google 'Lerach Clinton'. The Valley has a pretty long memory and Clinton's veto of the PSLRA would have put a pretty big block in her path to any VC money.

Posted by: MissionPk on May 14, 2008 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

What good is a party if nobody shows up?

Obama could have had all the shiny new tech in the world -- if his supporters hadn't been willing to use it then it wouldnt have meant a thing. Obama's core supporters are at least a generation younger than HC's core supporters. They are consequently more willing to use the internet for organizing and fundraising.

These were not interchangeable campaigns: demographics shaped what avenues the candidates had available to them.

Posted by: Adam on May 14, 2008 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

Auto: Obama's fundraising machine is based on tapping into millions of little people, each logging on to chip in a few dollars. ... What does big-time Silicon Valley money have to do with that?

Nothing. What Kevin calls "Clinton's neglect of Silicon Valley" is better described in the article as "not the money that poured in from Silicon Valley but the technology and the ethos". Ok, skip the ethos, the technology.

The extensive talk in the article about Silicon Valley is there because journalists like to hype Silicon Valley, not because it really has that much to do with Obama's fund raising. It's just an easy way to fill out and hype up an article (though that isn't to say that other parts of the article don't have merit).

Analogously, Eisenhower's 1952 campaign could have been described as a New Jersey style campaign. After all, it effectively leveraged the hot new technology called "TV", and a lot of early TV development was done in New Jersey.

Posted by: alex on May 14, 2008 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

Joe Trippi approached the Clinton campaign but was told "Thanks, but your help and advice will not be necessary", then he was patted on the head and shown the door.

Posted by: Shine on May 14, 2008 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

Knowing where to put the country's resources in order to accomplish our goals and/or thwart our rivals is a skill one would want one's president to have.

Posted by: anandine on May 14, 2008 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

"This is just another in a long line of stories showing how Obama is just like Jesus. But I used the banner ad at the top of the page to give McCain a few bucks."

We need to invest in remedial reading courses for Republicans. This anonymous Republican donor doesn't have a clue what Kevin's post says. Just like McCain's folks thought "[L]ost his bearings" meant "Is too senile to be President." Can't read worth a damn.

Posted by: David in NY on May 14, 2008 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

Edwards is about to endorse Obama right now.

Posted by: cazartcronkite on May 14, 2008 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

Silicon Valley money doesn't like Hillary? Hey, she didn't describe herself as the "Senator from Punjab" for nothing (although Senator from Karnataka would have been more accurate). Silicon Valley money has always loved the Clintons.

How about Obama? Shouldn't be a problem - he's as much a shill for Silicon Valley money as Hillary. For details see:

http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Archive/DemosObama.txt

The only thing that's new and different about Obama is the packaging. Otherwise he's as much a bought and paid for Democrat as Hillary.

Vote Democratic! (hey, they're not quite as bad as the Republicans).

Posted by: alex on May 14, 2008 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

If competence is Clinton's strong suit, what does her lousy job of running her campaign say about her? She was supposed to be tested and ready, but didn't she just flunk a quiz?

Posted by: dan robinson on May 14, 2008 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton's lack of funds hasn't been a major determinant in the outcomes. So it certainly wasn't a major error.

Her failure to understand that her opponent wasn't interested in getting everyone, just delegates, was a big mistake. She should have convinced Edwards to stay in until after Super Tuesday.

Posted by: Cal on May 14, 2008 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

Obama (and all of us) can thank Al Gore for inventing the Internet and Howard Dean (with Joe Trippi) for showing how to use it to raise money.

The Clinton campaign really does represent the past!

Posted by: MarkH on May 14, 2008 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

Personally, I don't like either of them, and I really, really hate their amateur fans.

Interesting that "amateur fans" figured out how the primary works, while the professionals couldn't.

Look, I was an enthusiastic supporter of Howard Dean. I donated time, money, and energy, and he lost. A lot of us were young an enthusiastic. Before me, there were enthusiastic Tsongas supporters, Hart supporters, and McCarthy supporters. Those "amateur fans" lost. Now that those "amateur fans" are older, professional Hillary supporters, they're pissed off at having to see mirror images of themselves from decades before pick off their baby-boomer, establishment frontrunner.

Me, I just feel great to see an insurgent like Obama win the nomination. I'm not willing to lash out at Obama's supporters for committing the sin of having picked a candidate who did better than the candidate I campaigned for when I was younger.

Hillary read the tea leaves wrong and hired poor-quality, backwards looking talent. She made a mistake, and it cost her the nomination. Get over it. Plenty of other people failed to get nominated president, too, and their supporters managed to move on.

Posted by: Tyro on May 14, 2008 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

It was not Clinton's lack of funds that was decisive in the primary campaign, but Obama's overflowing funds that allowed him to challenge the candidate running as the front runner. Without funding from the grassroots Obama would have had no campaign, and that funding opportunity was overlooked by Clinton. Clinton expected, or took for granted, Democrats to fall in line for her as the only viable candidate, which she was not.

Posted by: Brojo on May 14, 2008 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

The Valley is loaded with young, scientific brainiacs who were completely against the Iraq invasion, and Obama was the only candidate

I disagree with Dilbert's comment at 5:03. Kevin's post was about the big donors, not every 22-35 year-old guy who works in some position or another at a tech firm in Silicon Valley. It's about the owners and the founders and their money, not the individual voters and their (relative) chump change.

The older guys who own and founded the companies have cooler heads and savvy, and some of them might have liked whatever appeal Hillary made to them, and the establishment savvy (and opportunity to court her contacts that could come through getting to be friends with her campaign) she represented more than Obama's image. You don't get to be that rich and successful by having the kind of personality that requires you to bed down with every cool dude who comes across your path-- you get it by being more discerning (even if that doesn't fit some people's stereotype of the nerd image, it's certain that these guys are nerds who have the judgment to look past image alone).

Posted by: Swan on May 14, 2008 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINK

Tyro: I just feel great to see an insurgent like Obama win the nomination.

An insurgent, wow, what a rebel! A breath of fresh air! A new face!

Oh, you mean you want to talk about substance and policy rather than image? Uh, never mind.

Posted by: alex on May 14, 2008 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINK

alex, there are various aspects that make Obama appealing. Certainly his status as a candidate who challenged the party establishment and knew better than to support the iraq war against the judgment of the "serious democrats" like Clinton and Kerry makes him appealing. Those candidates typically lose, and I certainly was glad to see one of them succeed, even if I was skeptical of his candidacy, at first. I certainly don't see his success as a reason to be bitter at the people who latched onto Obama early, as you seem to be. Any Hillary supporter who claims his or her support is about her stance on the issues can sit down while I shove her iraq war and kyl-lieberman votes down their throats.

Posted by: Tyro on May 14, 2008 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

Brojo wrote:

It was not Clinton's lack of funds that was decisive in the primary campaign, but Obama's overflowing funds that allowed him to challenge the candidate running as the front runner.

Don't know what your point is, since political funding is more or less a zero-sum game.

If Hill takes away a source of Barack's funds (by getting them to give to her first) then that reaches the same results you're talking about (neutralizing Barack's over-flowing funds).

Cal wrote:

Clinton's lack of funds hasn't been a major determinant in the outcomes. So it certainly wasn't a major error.

More funds tend to help, though. There is no way to tell how she would have run her campaign differently had she managed to bring in $20 million or so more from the get-go. That's the scale of the funds we're talking about that were lost by this move- could be tens of millions.

Posted by: Swan on May 14, 2008 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

I have moved on, Tyro. Come November I will hold my nose and vote for the one that isn't McCain. But the kool-aid drinking supporters for both of these lesser candidates make that a truly unpleasant reality.

Posted by: ducking for cover on May 14, 2008 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

I have moved on, Tyro. Come November I will hold my nose and vote for the one that isn't McCain. But the kool-aid drinking supporters for both of these lesser candidates make that a truly unpleasant reality.

Posted by: ducking for cover on May 14, 2008 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

political funding is more or less a zero-sum game

Wrong. This assumes that there's some fixed number of "donors" who will defniitely donate to one campaign or another. That's not the case at all. Candidates can create enough enthusiasm for themselves to convince people do donate money who might not otherwise donate to any campaign. It's the monetary version of "boosting turnout" on election day.

Obama probably realized that he couldn't peel Hillary's donors away from her over to his side, so his solution was to "create more donors," the same way he managed to "create more caucus-goers" in order to win in Iowa.

Posted by: Tyro on May 14, 2008 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

Tyro: I certainly don't see his success as a reason to be bitter at the people who latched onto Obama early, as you seem to be.

Seem to be because I don't see Obama as the Messiah? I'm not bitter about people who latched on to him early, and I was never a Hillary supporter.

If there's anything I'm bitter about it's that this inside-the-beltway-except-in-image candidate is the best we'll have to offer. Fear not - I'll vote for the "not McCain" candidate, whoever he/she/it happens to be.

Posted by: alex on May 14, 2008 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

If there's anything I'm bitter about it's that this inside-the-beltway-except-in-image candidate is the best we'll have to offer.

Okay, so you have a particular governor you'd prefer? Because otherwise I have no idea what your non-inside-the-beltway-except-in-image means, unless you saw a candidate I didn't in the field of Congresspeople fielded for the Democratic primary this time around. Now if you fancy Che Guevara T-shirts & hemp undershorts, that's cool by me, but I have to warn you that you & Brojo might be a little lonely in your plan to storm the Bastille. I'm happy to bring doughnuts, though.

Posted by: junebug on May 14, 2008 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK

Off with the inside-the-beltway Congresspeoples' heads!

I prefer chocolate cake doughnuts.

Posted by: Brojo on May 14, 2008 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

Some of her staff tried to arrange "prospect meetings" in Silicon Valley, but they were overruled. "There was massive frustration about not being able to go out there and recruit people," a Clinton consultant told me last year.

Sounds like she hired the Kerry staff. Serves her damn right.

Posted by: John Emerson on May 14, 2008 at 7:44 PM | PERMALINK

Some of her staff tried to arrange "prospect meetings" in Silicon Valley, but they were overruled. "There was massive frustration about not being able to go out there and recruit people," a Clinton consultant told me last year.

Sounds like she hired the Kerry staff. Serves her damn right.

Posted by: John Emerson on May 14, 2008 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

junebug: I have no idea what your non-inside-the-beltway-except-in-image means

On economic issues, Obama is actually to the right of Hillary.

unless you saw a candidate I didn't in the field of Congresspeople fielded for the Democratic primary this time around

No, which is my point.

If I could draft someone it would be Feingold. Of course he's a dangerous radical who voted against the "Patriot Act", the Iraq war authorization (although the Messiah promises he really, really would have if only he'd been in the senate), and even opposed the NCLB farce. Why, he's even promoted publicly financed campaigns and questioned "free trade", so you'll probably find him in the Bastille, unless they just ship him straight to an asylum.

Now if you fancy Che Guevara T-shirts

Nah, Che was an ugly bastard.

& hemp undershorts

Sounds itchy - I'll stick with cotton.

you & Brojo might be a little lonely

Not with all the arguing we'll do - I'm one of those electrical engineers that he hates so much.

I'm happy to bring doughnuts, though.

Thanks - I like coconut.

Posted by: alex on May 14, 2008 at 7:47 PM | PERMALINK

I prefer chocolate cake doughnuts. -- Brojo

... I like coconut. -- alex

Duly noted. I'll bring plenty. It's essential to feed the sugar buzz that our more progressive brothers & sisters require.

Posted by: junebug on May 14, 2008 at 7:59 PM | PERMALINK

"Obama may have been uniquely situated to take financial and political advantage of the boom in social networking sites, but I sort of doubt it. I'll bet Hillary could have done it too. She just didn't."

Well, to be fair--she's old and she's not adaptable, so it may be unreasonable to expect her to be able to take advantage of a technology that came long after 1975.

Posted by: Helena Montana on May 14, 2008 at 8:33 PM | PERMALINK

Helena Montana: Well, to be fair--she's old and she's not adaptable, so it may be unreasonable to expect her to be able to take advantage of a technology that came long after 1975.

Yeah, kind of like how Eisenhower (who was older than Hillary when he ran in 1952) wasn't able to take advantage of the then new technology of TV (which was newer than the Internet is now).

Posted by: alex on May 14, 2008 at 8:48 PM | PERMALINK

If Hillary had NOT voted for the war, she'd have won.

But how could she not vote for it? Her husband had bombed Iraq repeatedly. Her husband's embargo killed half a million Iraqi kids.

I used to think she voted for the war because she wanted to run for president and she thought it would be a winner with voters. Now, with her "Iran" comments, I think she actually thought our Iraq invasion and occupation were great ideas.

She lost when she voted for the war. She had the lead in money, name recognition and endorsements when this all started. And she still lost. Its the war.

Posted by: TimB. on May 14, 2008 at 9:04 PM | PERMALINK

THE INTERNET IS THE NEW THIRD PARTY AND THE BLOGOSPHERE ITS POLITBUREAU. It should run its own candidates. Someone with internet interests in mind, perhaps Mr. Kevin Drum?

Posted by: Mike Meyer on May 14, 2008 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINK

"In a colossal error of judgment, the Clinton campaign never made a serious approach, assuming that Obama would fade and that lack of money and cutting-edge technology couldn't possibly factor into what was expected to be an easy race. Some of her staff tried to arrange "prospect meetings" in Silicon Valley, but they were overruled. "There was massive frustration about not being able to go out there and recruit people," a Clinton consultant told me last year. As a result, the wealthiest region of the wealthiest state in the nation was left to Barack Obama."

I wonder if there is any stupider than shit anecdote you people won't believe as long as it reflects poorly on the Clinton campaign. Your as bad as right wingers.

Posted by: david on May 14, 2008 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINK

But if Green is right, Clinton's neglect of Silicon Valley ranks as one of the biggest mistakes of her campaign.

And yet she carried California in the primary. So how big a mistake was it really?

Posted by: on May 14, 2008 at 10:25 PM | PERMALINK

And yet she carried California in the primary. So how big a mistake was it really?

Clinton not only won California, she won Silicon Valley.

Like I said upthread, Obama made good use of the Internet. In a reporter's mind that means "Silicon Valley", even if it doesn't.

Posted by: alex on May 14, 2008 at 10:38 PM | PERMALINK

Taking advantage of social networking technology would've been a lot easier if Hillary had any supporters under the age of 65.

Posted by: Vlad on May 15, 2008 at 7:17 AM | PERMALINK

Obama isn't young. Just thought I'd mention that. He's 47. JFK, Teddy Roosevelt, Clinton were younger. And lots were within 4-5 years of that mark.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on May 15, 2008 at 9:21 AM | PERMALINK

kevin -

you stopped a paragraph short of the most telling quote in the atlantic article.


here is the quote that i gag on each time i read it:

the speaker (roos) is a lawyer, the ceo of a leading law firm in the area, probably +- 45 years and the head of obama fund raising in the area

from “the atlantic”:

[Furthermore, in Silicon Valley’s unique reckoning, what everyone else considered to be Obama’s major shortcomings—his youth, his inexperience—here counted as prime assets.

I asked Roos, the personification of a buttoned-down corporate attorney, if there had been concerns about Obama’s limited CV, and for a moment he looked as if he might burst out laughing. “No one in Silicon Valley sits here and thinks, ‘You need massive inside-the-Beltway experience,’” he explained, after a diplomatic pause. “Sergey and Larry were in their early 20s when they started Google. The YouTube guys were also in their 20s. So were the guys who started Facebook. And I’ll tell you, we recognize what great companies have been built on, and that’s ideas, talent, and inspirational leadership.” ]

you got that?

the presidency of the united states is equivalent to a start-up. take a bright, energetic leader who talks a good line to venture capitalists and bingo

you’ve got yourself a presidential "corporation" going.

amazing.

and so simple.

could anyone be stupider than roos? yeah, probably.

and they are probably out selling buy-ins for The Obama Presidency, inc.

no doubt an isp will be forthcoming in the next few months.

Posted by: orionATL on May 15, 2008 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

non-inside-the-beltway-except-in-image

Whether Sen. Obama will become a liberal president or not is unkown, but it is encouraging that the Democratic candidate perceived to be the most progressive has most likely won the party's nomination for president.

Posted by: Brojo on May 15, 2008 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?










 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly