us election

It’s the Competitive Spirit, Stupid

 

Legacy media suffer from a deadly DNA mutation: they’ve lost  their appetite for competition; they no longer have the will to fight the hordes of new, hungry mutants emerging from the digital world. 

For this week’s column, my initial idea was to write about Obama’s high tech campaign. As in 2008, his digital team once again raised the bar on the use of data mining, micro-targeting, behavioral analysis, etc. As Barack Obama’s strategist David Axelrod suggested just a year ago in Bloomberg BusinessWeek, compared to what they were working on, the 2008 campaign technology looked prehistoric. Without a doubt, mastering the most sophisticated practices played a crucial role in Obama’s November 6th victory.

As I researched the subject, I decided against writing about it. This early after the election, it would have been difficult to produce more than a mere update to my August 2008 story, Learning from the Obama Internet Machine. But, OK. For those of you interested in the matter, here are a couple of resources I found this week: An interesting book by Sasha Issenberg, The Victory Lab, The Secret Science of  Winning Campaigns, definitely worth a read; or previously unknown tidbits in this Stanford lecture by Dan Siroker, an engineer who left Google to join the Obama campaign in 2008. (You can also feast on a Google search with terms like “obama campaign + data mining + microtargeting”.)

I switched subjects because something jumped at me: the contrast between a modern election campaign and the way traditional media cover it. If it could be summed up in a simplistic (and, sorry, too obvious) graph, it would look like this :

The 2012 Election campaign carries all the ingredients of the fiercest of competitions: concentrated in a short time span; fueled by incredible amounts of cash (thus able to get the best talent and technology money can buy); a workforce that is, by construction, the most motivated any manager can dream of, a dedicated staff led by charismatic stars of the trade; a binary outcome with a precise date and time (first Tuesday of November, every four years.) As if this was not enough, the two camps actually compete for a relatively small part of the electorate, the single digit percentage that will swing one way or the other.

At the other end of the spectrum, you have traditional media. Without falling into caricature, we can settle for the following descriptors: a significant pool of (aging) talent; a great sense of entitlement; a remote connection with the underlying economics of the business; a remarkably tolerance for mediocrity (unlike, say, pilots, or neurosurgeons); and, stemming from said tolerance, a symmetrical no-reward policy — perpetuated by unions and guilds that planted their nails in the media’s coffin.

My point: This low level of competitive metabolism has had a direct and negative impact on the economic performance of legacy media.

In countries, regions, or segments where newsrooms compete the most on a daily basis (on digital or print), business is doing just fine.

That is the case in Scandinavia which enjoys good and assertive journalism, with every media trying to beat the other in every possible way: investigation, access to sources, creative treatment, real-time coverage, innovations in digital platforms… The UK press is also intensively competitive — sometimes for the worse as shown in the News Corp phone hacking scandal. To some extent, German, Italian, Spanish media are also fighting for the news.

At the other end of the spectrum, the French press mostly gave up competing. The market is more or less distributed on the basis readers’ inclinations. The biggest difference manifests itself when a source decides to favor one media against the others. Reminding someone of the importance of competing, of sometimes taking a piece of news from someone else’s plate tends to be seen as ill-mannered, not done. The result is an accelerating drop in newspapers sales. Strangely enough, Nordic media will cooperate without hesitation when it comes to sharing industrial resources such as printing plants and distribution channels while being at each other’s throat when it comes to news gathering. By contrast, the French will fight over printing resources, but will cooperate when it’s time to get subsidies from the government or to fight Google.

Digital players do not suffer from such a cumbersome legacy. Building organizations from scratch, they hired younger staff and set up highly motivated newsrooms. Pure players such as Politico, Business Insider, TechCrunch and plenty of others are fighting in their beat, sometimes against smaller but sharper blogs. Their journalistic performance (although uneven) translates into measurable audience bursts that turn into advertising revenues.

Financial news also fall into that same category. Bloomberg, DowJones and Reuters are fighting for their market-mover status as well for the quality — and usefulness — of their reporting; subscriptions to their service depends on such performance. Hence the emergence of a “quantifiable motivation” for the staff. At Bloomberg — one of the most aggressive news machine in the world — reporters are provided financial incentives for their general performance and rewarded for exclusive information. Salaries and bonuses are high, so is the workload. But CVs are pouring in — a meaningful indicator.

Digital newsrooms are much more inclined to performance measurements than old ones. This should be seen as an advantage. As gross as it might sound to many journalists, media should seize the opportunity that comes with modernizing their publishing tools to revise their compensation policies. The main index should be “Are we doing better than the competition? Does X or Y contribute to our competitive edge?”. Aside from the editor’s judgement, new metrics will help. Ranking in search engines and aggregators; tweets, Facebook Likes; appearances on TV or radio shows; syndication (i.e. paid-for republication elsewhere)… All are credible indicators. No one should be afraid to use them to reward talent and commitment.

It’s high time to reshuffle the nucleotides and splice in competitive DNA strands, they do contribute to economic performance.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

 

Defining media moments in The election

What a ride! On December 24, 2007, for the customary but risky New Year prediction game, I wrote: “Barack Hussein Obama will be elected the 44th President of the United Sates of America on November 4, 2008. Why? Because he’s smart, he’s new, he’s clean, he’s authentic and because he is, by any measure, the antidote to the Bush era”… At the time — this was prior the bitter primary season — the outlook was grim. According to a CBS poll, Obama was trailing Hillary Clinton by 27% to 44% in the voting intentions, and only 41% of the registered Democrats considered the Illinois senator experienced enough against 83% who thought Hillary was ready to take the job. And she had the best chance to win the election by 63% versus 14% for Obama. More

What Now?

On November 4th, watching the election results at home in Palo Alto, I’ve seen tears in the eyes of reputedly and professionally cynical French people assembled for the momentous occasion.  We were proud of the country that hosts us and adopts us in its generous melting pot tradition.  Now, we are prouder, even, of its ability to stare at its old demons and to heed, instead, the invocation of its better angels.  One convincing, resounding vote ends eight years of appeal to fear, to mediocrity held up as virtue, of fake religiosity, of destroying liberties at home and lives abroad, of making the Statue of Liberty weep.  All this with a fittingly absurd coda: financial ruin and the socialization of the financial system by rigidly free-market ignoramuses.
.
So, Barack Obama (see the unusually good) won the 2008 election.  He raised hopes to heights never seen since … I’m not sure when.  I don’t believe JFK rode into the White House on such a combination of despair and hope, of war and recession.  Now, Obama (Barack for “blessed”, if we are to believe dueling Semitic languages) is cursed with winning and having to run the US government, with answering the sky-high expectations his campaign and his person have raised.
.
Can he deliver?
.
From a Silicon Valley, VC perspective in my case, there are reasons to see a light at the end of the proverbial tunnel — the light one local wag said George W. Bush had turned off to save energy.  I’ll start with the return of meritocracy vs. the self-defeating, falsely populist mediocracy of the W years. Even the Republican columnist at the NY Times, David Brooks, ended up chastising his fellow conservatives for their low pandering.
.
In practical, actionable terms, we’re likely to see an overt (and real, let’s not get confused) insistence on science education, high-tech investments in infrastructure, energy and, I’m not holding my breath, high-efficiency vehicles.  Of course, most of us in the Venture Investing biz will have to pay more taxes.  Personally, I want to pay more taxes my way: by making more money, that is by making investments in successful start-ups, that is young companies that sell a lot of their products. And, for this to happen, beyond good products, good entrepreneurs (and visionary but modest investors), we need customers with money to spend on our wonderful innovative products and services, we need a prosperous middle-class.
.
We tried the trickle-down trick: taking middle-class money to give it to the top 2% of the population. The theory was, you will recall, the 2% would both invest wisely and spend a lot.  As a result, more consumption, more jobs for the middle class. There are no guaranties the new (old, actually) theory will work better. There are plenty of reasons to fear a recession will make the new administration impotent or, worse, that an overly powerful Democrat Congress will keep at its old corrupt games.  Remember, Democrats voted for the catastrophic deregulation of CDS (Collateral Debt Swaps), the most likely trigger, not necessarily powder, for the financial explosion.
.

No, the real reason to hope was outlined to me at breakfast this last Thursday by an Apple insider. The individual gave money to Obama using the MyBarackObama social network.  Our Monday Note has already sung the praise of what is the most exemplary, most efficient, most grassroots Internet political campaign tool – so far.  What this person told me is the morning after the election, the network was already pinging him, sending him news, calling for action, asking for volunteers to help the Transition now and the new Administration later. Actually, if you want a job in the Obama White House or government, go to change.gov and fill a preliminary application.  I did.  I’m not holding out many hopes of being named Treasury Secretary or Internet Czar, but I’m curious to see what’s going on and if I could help.  Perhaps volunteering as a “good BS” teacher to high-school kids.
.
Even more seriously, the real point: Obama has built a direct democracy machine second to none.  He’ll have to make real decisions soon.  In plain English: he’ll have to disappoint some people, he’ll have to fight entrenched interests, some very legitimate ones, some richly “lobbied”.  In many cases he’ll have to fight his very own Democrat Congress if he is to perform effective surgery on the tax system and on the country’s spending.  For this, he’s built a network to speak to his supporters over the heads of heavily lobbied, I’m being polite, I won’t write “corrupt” Congress.
.
Let’s remember: according to Bloomberg, Obama raised the most money, $650M, from more than 3 million Web donors, with smallest average donation, around $200 per person.
.
I can’t wait to see the Internet Obama machine in action again. –JLG
.

Learning from the Obama Internet machine

From the very beginning, the Obama campaign met the standards of modern entrepreneurship: a clear goal (get to the White House), a strong leader (Barack), a simple pitch (Change) — and it needed cash, lots of it. And, unlike the Iraq war, it had a preset deadline, the close of business Tuesday November 4th. Not an IPO’s variable price, but a binary ending: either a milestone in modern History or a hard, highly visible failure.
.
Before we go any further, a few facts:

  • $401million raised by the Obama campaign – so far.  ($245m  for Hillary Clinton, and $171m for John McCain).
  • $200 million from the website alone (as of June 08)
  • $45 million were raised on the web in February alone
  • > 1 million user accounts on My.BarackObama.com
  • 75,000 local events organized through the site
  • 2 million phone calls originated from the site
  • $4 million have been invested (so far) in the site, including 1.1 million for Blue State Digital and about $3m for Google
  • 38 million people watched Barack’s acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention in Denver (YouTube viewership not included).  A new record.  This is more than the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony.  In 2004, Kerry got 24 million viewers and GW Bush 27.5 million
    4 million people watched Obama’s March 18th speech on race on YouTube
    .

Based on revenue, return on investment, popularity, penetration rate, brand recognition and any other business indicator, Barack’s Internet operation, MyBO (MyBarackObama) is a roaring success. For our humble media business, are there are lessons to be drawn from this incredible (but retroactively logical) ride? After all, we, too, live on popularity and meeting financial milestones.
.

Lesson #1: extract the best of a social network application. Above all, MyBO is a barebones version of a Facebook or a MySpace, focused on two goals: money and message. A detailed look shows how every single feature is designed in accordance with those goals. On the Obama social net, you give the minimum of yourself: you don’t share you tastes in music or reading. But you’ll find all the tools needed to fulfill your dual mission.

You want to organize a door-to-door campaign in your neighborhood? Everything’s there: scripts, ready-to-print flyers, and even video footage of the Illinois senator to be transferred on a DVD for handouts. You feel like throwing a fund-raiser on your block? Set up your fundraising page in a few clicks, assign yourself a financial target, a nice thermometer will track your results.

I spotted a group close to a place I used to live in New York (postal code 10011). I see “Downtown West Side Manhattan for Obama”, as it is called, counts 113 members, hosted 812 events, placed 10,722 phone calls, and raised $59,631.06. That is $527 per head. Not bad. Better that “Chelsea4Obama”, a few blocks north, yielding a mere $358 per member. You can track, compare, and peek at all the 8000 groups created that way. This amazing machine explains how the Obama campaign is able to raise two million dollars a day at its peak performance.
.

Lesson #2: Reward, involve, empower. In a YouTube video a black, middle-class woman summarizes the general feeling: “Grassroots Financial Committees mirror Senator Obama’s broader mission, [that is] people owning a part of the campaign and later, a part of the government…” Simple as it sounds, this view echoes the feelings of hundreds thousands of volunteers, donors and fundraisers: being part of the action now and after the election.  And doing it the fun way, because everything in the Obama site is designed to link, connect, share, stimulate and finally reward its contributors, no matter how modest.
.

Lesson #3: Don’t improvise, execution is key. No tinkering in the Obama site (unlike John McCain’s). It is engineered by pros, in that instance a small company called Blue State Digital, founded by alumni of Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign, the one that marked the first real debut of Internet fundraising.

Early 2007, BSD picked up some of the best skills available in the social networking space by hiring Chris Hughes, a co-creator of Facebook. Interestingly enough, the 24 year-old gent is not a techie. He majored in history and literature at Harvard and he’s responsible for many non-nerdy features of Facebook such as its privacy policy. Speaking of it, MyBO is fully loaded with all the state-of-the art tracking systems you can think of. To sum up, all members are now part of a big database, a pollster’s dream-come-true. Equally important is the high-level involvement of the Internet operators: at the Obama campaign, a BSD partner attends all senior staff meetings.
.

Lesson #4: Use Best-of-Breed interfaces and tools. Donating to the Obama-Biden ticket is roughly comparable to the One-click purchase on Amazon. You can even donate few dollars every months, and pay through Google Checkout.  Spreading the message relies heavily on always precise and relevant SMS, as well as social networks messaging.  No phone banks, this is for traditional (read old folks like McCain) campaigns. Calling for donations is decentralized and organized through the site (two millions calls placed so far). Blue State Digital has created a broad set of tools specially designed for political action, the ultimate form of promotion — and petition.
.

Lesson #5: Find the right balance between top down organization and anarchy. Of particular interest is  how the system is both directive and self-reliant. On MyBO blogs look (and are) true blogs, but it also looks like the organization’s gestalt instinctively directs, disciplines content. The site’s architecture and the ways tools work all converge towards providing clear direction. (I suspect a powerful monitoring system is working behind the curtains as well).
.

Lesson #6: TLA (Test, Learn & Adjust), more than ever. Once the basic infrastructure (one capable of handling massive traffic) got up and running, MyBO switched to constant improvement mode. One large scale instance of the test and learn approach: a year ago, the staff introduced a point system to track member activity. Three points for a phone call, fifteen for hosting an event. Predictably, people started racking up points for the mere sake of it, regardless of actual impact. The system needed adjustments. Early August, MyBO rolled out an upgrade called the Activity Tracker. It replaced the brute force point accumulation with a more detailed breakdown of activities: Events hosted,  Doors knocked, Number of blog posts, Calls made, Groups joined, and of course, Dollars raised. To encourage sustained effort, another dimension was added: the Activity Tracker became time-sensitive. The more recent the work, the higher the member’s Activity Index becomes. Of course, all of the above happens in everyone’s full view, thus creating peer pressure. This is just one example. Over the course of the campaign, many such features were added, modified or dropped.
.

What’s lies ahead. The Monday Note will stick by its December 24′s predication: Barack Obama will be elected. Now, one of the most interesting features of his presidency will be how all the lessons gathered while operating MyBO will be translated into a powerful public governance tool. No doubt that Blue State Digital will work on it soon.  How an Obama administration balances grassroots induced policies with the bulky (but essential) legislative apparatus is sure to be closely watched by all mature democracies — as well as big corporations.  –FF

. .

The Valley loves Obama

by Jean-Louis Gassée
.
Well, not everyone, we have our contingent of Republican believers who still think Obama is a socialist.
Which reminds me of the way we, the French and the Americans, are on occasion equally knee-jerk bone-headed.  In my country of birth, painful reforms are tarred as “libéral”.  There, the label means right wing free-market ultra-conservative.  Here, in my adopted country, painful reforms are called “liberal”, meaning left wing, bleeding heart, big government tax and spend socialist.  Logomachy.  Why think when you can maim an idea with a label?
.
We’ll see a lot more of that in the two months remaining before the November 4th vote, one many of us here think it will go Obama’s way.  Why?
.
In the first place, we despise the Bush administration. Never in the Valley’s history have we seen an administration so anti-scientific, anti-liberties, xenophobic, intrusive, profligate, dishonest, harmful to America’s standing in the world and in many ways an obstacle to what we do, a counter-example of what we stand for.
.
Yes, we’re capitalists, we like to make money. But, with few unfortunate exceptions, we do it because we help entrepreneurs realize their dreams, because we’re behind Google, Cisco, Yahoo!, Apple, Jupiter, BEA, Facebook and many, many others.  We don’t strip people from their home ownership with trick subprime loans, throwing the country’s financial system into a spin it hasn’t yet recovered from.  Yes, there was the Internet Bubble and, like the current crisis, it was aided and abetted by Wall Street con artists while Washington looked the other way, or took from the other hand.  To do what we do, to continue helping innovative companies start and grow, we need a stable financial system, not the biggest deficit this country ever dug itself in.
.
This administration condones the re-invasion of religion into public education: some schools in the South now teach creationism, holding the Bible’s account as a factual description of the beginnings of the Universe.  Not poetry, symbolism or a meditation on the mystery of our origins, no, fact.  The same intellectual honesty presides over discussions of climate change.
.
Here, we live in a nice oasis: the color of your passport, of your skin, the thickness of your accent, the way you pray or roll in the hay, none of that matters.  What can you do?  How can you help?  Those are the questions we ask.  As a result, entrepreneurs love to come here from all over the world, Russian programmers, Chinese Ph. D, even French Polytechniciens.  I remember the July 2001 day when I became a US citizen.  There were 996 of us in the San Jose Civic Auditorium.  The federal judge who administered the swearing in told us there were 80 nations in the room.  Tiny Chinese grandmothers, Hispanics, Slavs, Swedes, Indians, Iranians…  And, with tears in my eyes, tears that come back as I write this, I thought: This is how my dear Silicon Valley will continue to be this oasis of meritocracy and entrepreneurship.  The same judge kept telling us to use our new civic rights, to register to vote.  The ceremony came to an end and, as we exited the auditorium, we saw a big table and volunteers ready to help with the registration paperwork – for the Republican Party.  The Democrats were at the beach.  That’s how I became a registered Republican –  soon to re-register as an Independent and thus able to vote either way.
.
Back to the Bush administration, what does it do to help Silicon Valley continue to attract entrepreneurs from all over the world? Getting work visas becomes much harder.  This in a country where 25% of high-school “students” quit before graduation, when graduating is so easy all you have to do, in some of the worse schools, is fog the proverbial mirror.  In all fairness, that very problem, the state of high school education, the resulting lack of qualified “intellectual manpower”, pardon the oxymoron, and the ensuing need to import it, that situation is not Bush’s fault.  We blame his cavalier indifference to it.  But it predated him and secondary schools are but an example of a more general case of systems so entrenched, so powerful they can’t be reformed with politics as usual.
.
Let’s face it, it’s our problem.  We keep electing solons who, once in Washington, run into the arms and wallets of lobbyists and sell us down the river to telecom, Big Pharma, healthcare and Wall Street interests.  The executive, Bush, McCain or Obama can’t win against Congress and lobbyists.
.
Unless…
.
Obama, once elected, displays the charisma and willpower to connect with the electorate over the heads of Congress. In other words, we need a President who gets our support, channels our willpower.  Then, together, we put legislators into a vise and squeeze them into working for us instead of being on the payroll of lobbyists and their clients.
.
In his column, Frédéric explains how Obama used the lessons and the people from Howard Dean’s successful Internet operation.  Obama has shown the will and skill to use technology to empower voters like no one before him.  That’s how he won against the “inevitable” Hillary.  Too bad for her supporters if they stay angry at Obama for beating their champion, they should be furious at her for her entitled behavior and for not paying attention to what the “inexperienced” competitor was building.
.
This is dangerous, of course.  Political scientists will rightly remind us of the dangers of direct democracy. It can lead to dictatorship, to a rump parliament, to the disappearance of checks and balances.  But this is a democratic 50-50 country and I don’t see a dictatorship happening here.  Unless, of course, we look at the Stalinist labeling of human beings as “enemy combatants” in order to torture them, to deprive them from the right to habeas corpus and to a fair trial.  A French communist once lectured me on the constitution of the Soviet Union, it guaranteed civil rights, personal liberties.  Unless, of course, you were an “Enemy of the People”.  No rights for you, then.  Off to the gulag.
.
With this in mind, for many of us here, Obama looks safer than playing the same Washington game with barely different players. We could be naïve, we know there is the “small matter of implementation”, of the ugly reality of governing once you’ve won the contest.  Still, we hope this mestizo of John Kennedy and Martin Luther King (minus the women and the pharmacy) will restore faith in our government. — JLG

The Facebook Candidate

In last week Monday Note, my co-writer Jean-Louis Gassée explained why Silicon Valley was about to vote for Barack Obama, “He’s one of us”, he said. Here is couple of interesting stories I’m submitting to your point and click acumen. Two are from the Atlantic Monthly. The first one, tilted “HisSpace” explains how the use of digital media by the democratic candidate was comparable to the irruption of radio in the Franklin Delano Roosevelt election. Or to John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s mastery of television. “Obama has truly set himself apart by his campaign’s use of the Internet to organize support, writes Marc Ambinder. No other candidate in this or any other election has ever built a support network like Obama’s. The campaign’s 8,000 Web-based affinity groups, 750,000 active volunteers, and 1,276,000 donors have provided him with an enormous financial and organizational advantage in the Democratic primary. Obama clearly intends to use the Web, if he is elected president, to transform governance just as he has transformed campaigning”. The article refers also to the so-called Netroots that describes a new kind of political activism entirely based on digital networks.

But it’s on the money side that Obama’s digital inclination was the most compelling. According to the last count by the New York Times, Barack Obama has raised so far $240m compared to slightly more hat $100m for the Republican nominee John Mc Cain. More interestingly, 94% of donations to the Obama campaign were $200 o less. In the month of February alone, his campaign raised a stunning $55m, $45m coming from internet donation alone! In his piece “The Amazing Money Machine”, Atlantic Monthly reporter Joshua Green wrote : “[Obama] built a fund-raising machine quite unlike anything seen before in national politics. Obama’s machine attracts large and small donors alike, those who want to give money and those who want to raise it, veteran activists and first-time contributors, and—especially—anyone who is wired to anything: computer, cell phone, PDA”. More broadly, “Obama’08″ relies a lot on mechanisms of social and collaborative networks seen in Silicon Valley, suggests Noam Cohen in The New York Times.Does it guarantee a victory in November. Certainly not. Far from it.

Barack Obama is our man

From a distance, it must be hard to comprehend Silicon’s Valley position on the 2008 presidential election. Isn’t Stanford University, the heart of the region, a private, capitalistic university? Aren’t all rich investors and entrepreneurs siding with the party of money, Republicans? This is the capital of capital, the world-center of free enterprise, how can we support Tax & Spend Big Government Liberals? There are many answers to that, suspiciously too many, perhaps.

Let’s start with the Caviar Left posture: now that we’ve made our money, we tell others to make sacrifices. See Al Gore pontificating about carbon footprints while traveling by private jet and living in a huge energy-hungry mansion. A note in passing: Al is a partner in a Kleiner Perkins venture capital fund. John Doerr, one of Kleiner’s lead VC is a hyperactive fund raiser for Democrats. And while we note things in passing, see Colin Powell on the masthead as a Strategic Limited Partner.

A year ago, we were all for Hillary. Out with Bush and the litany of Iraq War, frightening deficit, torture, domestic spying, healthcare, education, infrastructure neglect. Not that we were in love with Hillary but, based on her and Bill’s track record, we knew she could be bought, we could do business with her. In a not so perverse way, we like Obama for the exact opposite reason: he can’t be bought. Hillary took money from big donors, from the lobbies our elected officials sold us to. Barack, on the other hand, handily outraised Hillary by an almost two to one margin, getting money from small donors, mostly on the Web. This gets us in what I think is the real reason we like Obama: He’s one of us. I’m not saying this because he’s been spotted using an iPhone. No, what we see is someone who connects with the connected generation. We see someone like us, venture investors and entrepreneurs, who holds an optimistic and meritocratic picture of the future. The latter adjective, meritocratic, got him in trouble. Used without enough discretion at a San Francisco meeting, it upset the more pessimistic market segment, the white lower middle class with a justifiably gloomy view of their prospects.

Then, while Hillary banked on her inevitability, Barack out-strategized, outraised, out-organized and outspoke her. And as inevitability switched sides, so did we. The really real reason came into play: visionary sheep that we are, we flocked to the winner. Hillary tried every dirty trick in the Clinton playbook to try and stop him. From raising prospects of Kennedy and Martin Luther King-like assassinations to bad-faith answers to questions about Obama’s own faith. What do you think of rumors that Obama is a Moslem? Instead of saying such libel had no place in a campaign for the highest office of the land, she replied she took him “at his own word he is a Christian”. The interviewer insisted: Come on, you know these rumors are false. “I take him at his own word.” Hillary had one more opportunity to rise above the gutter, to look presidential. Instead, the highly visible low blow, this was on 60 Minutes, strengthened her reputation for being Bill’s even less principled half.

I was half-kidding when I wrote above we back Obama because we like to back the winner. To us, he looks like a mestizo of JFK and MLK, minus the women and the pharmacy. To us, he looks like he will return the US to a position of exporting hope instead of exporting fear. That’s why we allow ourselves to hope we’ll make history together. In the end, how could we support the Clintons in their re-conquest of the White House, they don’t email, they don’t use Blackberries… Seriously, the BFD (Big Fundable Deal, in VC parlance) this coming week is the iPhone Applications Developers Conference in SFO. Watch this space next week. — JLG