Obama's Leftism

Introducing himself to the nation at the 2004 Democratic national convention, Barack Obama spoke not only of his black father, “born and raised in a small village in Kenya,” but of his white mother, “born in a town . . . in Kansas” to a father who “worked on oil rigs and farms through most of the Depression” before enlisting in military service “the day after Pearl Harbor.” What brought them together was “a magical place, America,” he said, adding, “I stand here today, grateful for the diversity of my heritage . . . knowing that . . . in no other country on earth, is my story even possible.”

Not only was Obama the real, living embodiment of America’s racial diversity. He was a dazzling presence, outshining the party’s nominee with his look, stage presence, oratorical mastery, and the brilliance of his rhetoric. Nor was that all. This avatar of reconciliation talked of transcending divisions not just racial but political and ideological. He spoke lovingly of country and movingly of God and family in a way that had eluded the Democrats since their sharp turn to the Left when the party nominated George McGovern in 1972.

In the speech’s highlight, Obama said:

[T]here is not a liberal America and a conservative America—there is the United States of America. . . . We worship an “awesome God” in the blue states, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the red states. We coach Little League in the blue states and yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the red states. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

Four years later, Obama is the Democratic nominee, and even his occasional shrill attacks on his opponent seem to have chipped away little of the cornerstone of his own candidacy: the promise to bring us, all of us, together. Can he do that? Is he well-suited to raise the curtain on a new post-partisan, post-ideological era?

From his record in office, it would hardly seem so. Non-partisanship does not just mean Democrats coaching Little League, lovely as that is, but cooperating with members of the other party in developing compromise solutions to national problems. The Senate has a particularly rich tradition of such bipartisanship, but Obama appears never to have participated in it. On the contrary: according to Congressional Quarterly, which measures how often each member votes in accordance with or at variance from the majority of his own party, Obama has compiled one of the most partisan of all voting records.

Last year, for example, the average Senator voted with his own party 84 percent of the time; Obama voted with his party 96 percent of the time. In the prior two years, his number was 95 percent, making him the fourth most partisan member of the Senate. And not just partisan, but also highly ideological. In 2007, according to the National Journal, Obama’s voting record made him “the most liberal Senator.” Throughout his Senate career, according to Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), the dean of liberal advocacy groups, Obama voted “right” 90 percent of the time. Actually this is misleading, since ADA counts an absence as if it were a vote on the “wrong” side. If we discount his absences, Obama voted to ADA’s approval more than 98 percent of the time.

This touches directly on the question of what, beyond the platitudes of unity, hope, and change, Obama himself believes in. His voting record is one indication. Another is his intellectual evolution.

_____________

Abandoned by his father when he was still too young to remember him and then sent at age ten by his mother to live in Hawaii with her parents, who enrolled him in a prestigious prep school, Obama spent much of his teen years searching for his black identity. Late in his high-school career he found a mentor of sorts in Frank Marshall Davis, an older black poet. According to Herbert Romerstein, former minority chief investigator of the House Committee on Internal Security, FBI files reveal Davis to have been a member of the Communist party not only in its public phase but also when it officially dissolved and went underground in the 1950’s.

According to Obama, Davis told him that a white person “can’t know” a black person, and that the “real price of admission” to college was “leaving your race at the door.” Perhaps influenced by this, he reports that at college,

[t]o avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.

Despite Obama’s tone of self-mockery, the passage discloses the milieu in which he immersed himself. In this light, it is not surprising that, upon graduation, he decided on a career as a “community organizer,” even if it was none too clear to him what exactly that meant. As he confesses in his early memoir Dreams from My Father (1995):

When classmates . . . asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn’t answer them directly. Instead I’d pronounce on the need for change. Change in the White House . . . . Change in the Congress . . . . Change in the mood of the country . . . . Change won’t come from the top, I would say. Change will come from a mobilized grass roots. . . . I’ll organize black folks.

Thanks to a grant from a left-wing foundation, he was hired by a small group of white protégés of Saul Alinsky, the original apostle of “community organizing.” Alinsky’s institutional base was the Industrial Areas Foundation, which he called a “school for professional radicals” and whose goal he announced to be “revolution, not revelation.” As Obama himself would put it, there were “two roles that an organizer was supposed to play . . . getting the Stop sign [and] the educative function. At some point you have to link up winning that Stop sign . . . with the larger trends, larger movements.” In other words, “community organizer,” to Obama and his colleagues and mentors, was a euphemism for professional radical.

It was in the course of trying to mobilize churches for political protest that Obama met Jeremiah Wright. When the controversy surrounding the pastor arose this year, Obama denied being present when Rev. Wright delivered his most incendiary sermons, commenting that he was like “an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don’t agree with.” But this was evasive. By Obama’s own testimony, the reason other ministers directed him to Wright was that Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ was steeped in politics.

Thus, Obama writes that Wright had “dabbl[ed] with liquor, Islam, and black nationalism” before returning to Christianity and studying, among other things, “the black liberation theologians.” Whoever and however many these theologians may have been, Wright invoked only one on the church’s website. “The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ,” in Wright’s words, was “based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology.”

What was that theology? Here are two tiny snippets of Cone’s thought: “Christianity and whiteness are opposites,” and “there will be no peace in America until whites begin to hate their whiteness.”* In addition to a cross superimposed on a map of Africa, the website declares: “We are an African people, and remain ‘true to our native land,’ the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.” It defines Trinity as, among other things, “a congregation committed to the historical education of African people in diaspora, a congregation committed to liberation.” When Obama joined the church in the 1980’s, it did not yet have a website, but he tells of a brochure that, while condoning the pursuit of income, warned congregants against the “psychological entrapment of black ‘middleclassness.’” The liberationist music was playing back then, too.

At Trinity, Obama attempted to enlist Rev. Wright in his protest campaign, and the pastor sought to recruit Obama to the church. Evidently both succeeded, though at the time Obama says he was so far from religion that he “could no longer distinguish between faith and mere folly.” But when he began to participate in Trinity’s services he discovered he was not unique in his ambivalence. Of the other congregants, he would observe:

Not all of what these people sought was strictly religious. . . . It occurred to me that Trinity, with its African themes, its emphasis on black history, [was] a redistributor of values and circulator of ideas. Only now the redistribution didn’t run in just a single direction from the schoolteacher or the physician . . . to . . . the sharecropper or the young man fresh from the South. . . . The flow of culture now ran in reverse as well, the former gang-banger, the teenage mother, had their own forms of validation—claims of greater deprivation, and hence authenticity.

The first time Obama attended services at Trinity, Wright delivered a sermon (it was titled “the audacity of hope”) whose theme was: “white folks’ greed runs a world in need.” Twenty years later, when it was revealed that Wright’s church had honored Louis Farrakhan, that Wright had traveled with Farrakhan to visit the Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, and that in his sermons Wright had beseeched God to “damn America,” charged the U.S. government with inventing the AIDS virus in order to kill black people, and claimed that Israel and South Africa had colluded to invent an “ethnic bomb” to kill blacks and Arabs while leaving whites unharmed—when all this was revealed, Obama, under pressure from the Hillary Clinton campaign, declared himself “shocked” at Wright’s vitriol. But in truth not only was he aware of Wright’s views, they were what had drawn him to Trinity church in the first place.

_____________

Obama left Chicago after three years to attend Harvard Law School. As he would explain, “I had things to learn . . . , things that would help me bring about real change.” After graduating with honors in 1991, he returned to the Windy City to join the small law firm of Judson Miner, an activist who had been attorney to Mayor Harold Washington.

Within three years of his return, he also became deeply involved with Bill Ayers, a former leader of the so-called Weather Underground. This leftist terrorist group, akin to the German Baader-Meinhof gang or the Italian Red Brigades, specialized in bombing government buildings. Ayers later wrote boastfully that he had personally carried out an attack on the Pentagon. Ayers’s wife and closest collaborator was Bernardine Dohrn, whose views were so extreme that they seemed to cross a line from ultra-leftism to Satanism. At a meeting of the Weather Underground, she hailed the murders then recently committed by Charles Manson’s demented followers. “Dig it, first they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach!” she exulted, giving a three-fingered salute to signify a fork.

After the pair emerged from hiding in 1980, a court dismissed the main charges against Ayers on the grounds that the government had used an illegal wiretap. He pled guilty to possessing explosives, but served no time. The net outcome inspired him to gloat that he was “guilty as hell and free as a bird.” Dohrn served seven months. Then they both went respectable, but without changing their views. Ayers posed for a picture stomping on an American flag, and in 2001 he told the New York Times: “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”

The details of Obama’s association with Ayers remain somewhat shrouded because both Ayers and Dohrn have refused to discuss it, while Obama and his spokesmen have prevaricated about it. When, during one of the televised primary debates, George Stephanopoulos asked about his connection to Ayers, Obama replied:

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense.

Later, Obama’s campaign manager, David Axelrod, added: “Bill Ayers lives in his neighborhood. Their kids attend the same school.” If this is true, Ayers’s children must be slow learners, since they are thirty-one and twenty-eight while Obama’s are nine and six. But Obama’s own reply, though less bald-faced than Axelrod’s, was thoroughly disingenuous. Thanks to the meticulous investigations of the Left-leaning blogger Steven Diamond (globallabor.blogspot.com), the story of Obama and Ayers’s collaboration has been seeping into the public record despite extraordinary efforts to seal it.

After escaping punishment for his crimes, Ayers received degrees in education and became an advocate of school reform in Chicago. In particular, he propounded a “radical” project in the late 1980’s that was inspired by New York City’s disastrous experiment decades earlier in “community control.” Ayers’s project was championed by a coalition called the Alliance for Better Chicago Schools (ABC’s); according to Diamond, one member of the “alliance” was the Developing Communities Project (DCP), the group for which Obama worked as an organizer. If so, then it is likely that the two met back then, since the DCP was a tiny organization and Obama was most likely its representative.

In any event, in 1994, when the philanthropist Walter Annenberg put up $500 million to help the nation’s public schools, Ayers submitted a grant proposal that secured $50 million for an entity called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. The word “challenge” signified that the recipients were required to find double the amount in matching funds; this they did, disposing altogether of some $160 million.

The ostensible purpose of the project was to reinvigorate Chicago’s flagging decentralization project. Ayers devised a structure made up of three connected elements, of which the main two were the Collaborative, or operational center, and the Board, with overall financial control. Ayers named himself to head the Collaborative; Barack Obama, apparently by Ayers’s choice, became chairman of the Board.

So it is conceivable that the two met as late as 1994, but this hardly seems likely. Would anyone yield control of the purse to someone he did not already know well and trust thoroughly? And what exactly were Obama’s credentials in the field of school reform, unless he had been active in the ABC’s with Ayers in the 1980’s? At the very latest, the two must have met sometime after Obama returned from Harvard in late 1991 or early 1992, well before he was chosen to chair the board in 1995.

For the next four to five years, the two worked together to raise the matching funds and disburse small grants to local organizations pushing the reform program. It could only have been an intimate partnership. When Obama decided to run for the state senate, his first fund-raising event was held in the home of Ayers and Dohrn. In 1997, Ayers published a book about juvenile justice, A Kind and Just Parent, which Obama blurbed as “a searing and timely account.” The two also served together on the board of the leftist Woods Fund from 1998 until 2001.

This is what is now public about the relations between Obama and the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. There may be much more, so far successfully hidden by all concerned; but even these facts suggest that Ayers was among Obama’s closest collaborators.

_____________

Obama’s turn to electoral politics signified no change in his basic ideological orientation. As his wife Michelle put it: “Barack is not a politician first and foremost. He’s a community activist exploring the viability of politics to make change.” (“I take that observation as a compliment,” Obama said as late as 2005.)

Obama’s target was a legislative seat held by Alice Palmer, who had decided to make a run for the U.S. Congress. She introduced Obama in Democratic-party circles as her anointed successor. (After a later falling-out, the two would dispute whether her support had amounted to a formal endorsement or merely, as she claimed, “an informal nod.”) Like others among his mentors or patrons, Palmer, too, was a radical, a member of the executive body of the U.S. Peace Council, the least disguised of Soviet front organizations. She had made multiple pilgrimages to the Soviet Union, and in 1986 attended the 27th Congress of the Soviet Communist party, telling the party paper on her return that the Soviets “plan to provide people with higher wages and better education, health and transportation, while we in our country are hearing that cutbacks are necessary in all of these areas.” According to a later story in the same paper, Palmer visited Moscow again the following year to attend the World Congress of Women sponsored by another Soviet front organization.

In his campaign for the Illinois senate, Obama was endorsed by the New Party (NP), a coalition of socialists, Communists, and other leftists. According to the newsletter of the local chapter of Democratic Socialists of America, whose members were said to constitute 15 percent of the Chicago New Party, “Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP [which] mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.” Apparently, Obama signed such a pledge. After winning the primary (unopposed because his lawyers had succeeded in knocking all three opponents off the ballot), he appeared at a New Party membership meeting to voice his thanks.

Entering the national political scene eight years later, Obama did not, to be sure, appear as a radical, but he still bore the earmarks of the world in which he had been immersed for twenty years. He called himself “progressive,” a term of art favored by veterans of the hard New Left, like Tom Hayden, as well as by old-time Communists. Early this year his wife Michelle, lacking his tact, would kindle controversy by saying that his success in the presidential primaries made her feel proud of her country for the first time. The comment, a faux pas that she was soon at pains to explain away, flowed logically from her view, expressed in her standard stump speech, that our country is a “downright mean” place, “guided by fear,” where the “life . . . that most people are living has gotten progressively worse.”

This year, Obama appeared before Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network (whose official slogan is “no justice, no peace”) to seek its support. The candidate praised Sharpton as “a voice for the voiceless and . . . dispossessed. What National Action Network has done is so important to change America, and it must be changed from the bottom up.” Given Sharpton’s long career of reckless racial demagogy, it might seem shocking that a mainstream candidate should be seeking his blessing, but in this, at least, Obama was not unique: all of the 2008 Democratic aspirants did so. He did, though, strive to separate himself from the pack:

If there is somebody who has been more on the forefront on behalf of the issues that you care about and has more concrete accomplishment on behalf of the things you’re concerned about, then I am happy to see you endorse them. I am happy to see you support them. . . . But I am absolutely confident that you will not find that, because there is nobody who has stood fast on these issues more consistently each and every day, than I have. That is something that I know.

As it happened, Sharpton, a consummate wheeler-dealer, kept his options open for a while. But other radicals, soft and hard, rushed to embrace Obama, often waxing rapturous in their support. Robert Borosage and Katrina vanden Heuvel enthused in the Nation that Obama’s was “a historic candidacy,” from which “new possibilities will be born.” Michael Lerner wrote in Tikkun that the “energy, hopefulness, and excitement that manifests [sic] in Obama’s campaign” was reminiscent of “the civil-rights movement, the anti-war movement, the women’s movement, the environmental movement, and the movement for gay liberation.” Most remarkably, Tom Hayden himself joined the chorus by breaking a New Left taboo against “red-baiting” and laying bare some of Hillary Clinton’s own far-Left history—this, in retaliation for the Clinton campaign’s revelations about Obama’s radical background.

_____________

Even after declaring his candidacy, and despite a certain inevitable sidling rightward, Obama still reflected the presuppositions of a radical worldview. In one notable remark, he said of voters in economic distress that in their desperation they “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” Chastised for his condescension, he responded: “I said something that everybody knows is true.” This was elitism of a very specific kind—the mentality of the community organizer, according to which people in the grip of “false consciousness” need to be enlightened as to the true nature of their class interests, and to the nature of their true class enemies.

The same suppositions are again evident in Obama’s stances on international issues. Iraq, as he sees it, is only a symptom. “I don’t want to just end the war . . . I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.” And what would that mindset be? In a 2002 speech that he frequently cites, he said the war resulted from

the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors . . . to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne . . . the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income . . . the arms merchants in our own country . . . feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

In this litany of global perfidy, the issues of Saddam Hussein’s murderous dictatorship, of American security, of the future of freedom, shrink to inconsequentiality next to the struggle of the oppressed against their American capitalist overlords.

When it comes to Iran, Obama has acknowledged that the regime presents a problem. But his actions—he opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization—as well as his rhetoric imply that the greater danger emanates from George W. Bush (who is allegedly seeking “any justification to extend the Iraq war or to attack Iran”). Likewise on defeating terrorism, where he rejects the America-centric focus that Bush has given to the issue; instead, in the words of his aides, Obama’s main goal is to “restore . . . our moral standing”—that is, to put an end to our aggressive ways.

Even the events of 9/11 could not shake Obama from the mindset that the enemy is always ourselves. The bombings, he wrote, reflected

the underlying struggle—between worlds of plenty and worlds of want; between the modern and the ancient; between those who embrace our teeming, colliding, irksome diversity, while still insisting on a set of values that binds us together; and those who would seek, under whatever flag or slogan or sacred text, a certainty and simplification that justifies cruelty toward those not like us.

In this reading, the lessons to be learned from the actions of Osama bin Laden and Mohammed Atta are that we must accept multiculturalism at home and share our wealth abroad.

_____________

In sum, Obama comes to us from a background farther to the Left than any presidential nominee since George McGovern, or perhaps ever. This makes him an extremely unlikely leader to bridge the divides of party, ideology, or, for that matter, race. If he loses, it will be for that reason (though many will no doubt adduce different explanations, including of course white racism, to which every GOP victory since Nixon’s election in 1968 has been attributed).

And if he wins? Without a doubt, it will be a thrilling moment. But the enduring importance of that landmark event will depend on the subsequent effectiveness of his presidency. If his tenure—like that of, say, Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter—should end by inviting scorn, then it may open as many wounds as it heals. On the other hand, it is not unimaginable that he may rise to the challenge of the office and govern from the center, as he will have to do to succeed. This, however, would truly involve reinventing himself, a task for which his intellectual and ideological background furnishes few materials.

With his sharply partisan speech to the Democratic national convention in late August, Obama appeared to zag to the Left after months of zigging toward the center in hopes of winning over independent voters, which had stirred cries of alarm among some of his leftist supporters. Others among them, however, were and are nothing fazed. As the Nation’s Robert Dreyfuss explained, they “put their faith in the Senator’s character and innate instincts.” Heaven help us, they are probably right.

Sheryl Crow: Each Candidate Should Have To Debate Bono

"All agreed that the final stage of this campaign should be that each candidate should have to debate Bono."

Obama: John McCain is Right

Even Heavy-Metal Fans Complain That Today's Music Is Too Loud!!! They Can't Hear the Details, Say Devotees of Metallica; Laying Blame on iPods

Turning It Up

View Interactive

Compare the sound quality from two Metallica clips: from "Death Magnetic" and "…And Justice for All."

The Death of High Fidelity: In the age of MP3s, sound quality is worse than ever

Women rule the roost, and that's OK with men

At Home, Women Hold the Power

A Presidential McCain: McCain's bold move could reframe the election--and win it.

The Paulson Plan Will Make Money For Taxpayers

The Candidates Vote 'Present'

The First Debate Could Be Decisive

Bono's blog for FT.com from the Millennium Development Goals summit and surrounding meetings in New York

Bono is lead singer of U2 and co-founder of the One campaign

The view from Manhattan

Meeting Sarkozy, and why Europe needs Africa

Aid is a leg-up, not a hand-out

A tribute to the generosity of Americans

A phone call with Sarah Palin, meeting Ban-Ki Moon, and war on malarial mosquitoes

A big day and a big week to big up the Millennium Development Goals

Community, Rock, & Rhetoric

Editor’s Note: Here, we continue to publish the work of Dr. Laurie Britt-Smith and her exploration of Bono’s rock-n-roll rhetoric. In this installment, she provides the background needed to understand the concept of a Discourse community as explained by James Paul Gee. We hope that folks who have been following this series of posts will study this one carefully as it will set up the next series of articles.

Previous articles:

Is Bono A Prophet

And A Rock Star Shall Lead Them

David Letterman Reacts to John McCain Suspending Campaign

Junk Science: 'Functional' foods promise good health -- but can they deliver?

The United States of Mind: Researchers Identify Regional Personality Traits Across America

Charlatans to the Rescue

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Triumph

Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools

How Sarah Got McCain's Groove Back

AP

Bloomberg: How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis

Commentary by Kevin Hassett

Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.

But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

Turning Point

Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.

It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

Greenspan's Warning

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''

Mounds of Materials

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett at khassett@aei.org

"C" LEVEL JOB INTERVIEWS AND WHAT THE HIRING ORGANIZATION WANTS YOU TO TELL THEM

Receiving an offer as Chief Communications Officer, head of Investor Relations or any "C" level job means you have sold the leadership team on fit. This is after you’ve demonstrated that you can do the job the hiring team "thinks" it wants done (more on what I mean by "thinks" later). Here’s how to navigate the interviewing process and leave a winning impression.

In my previous newsletter, I wrote about what the resume of a "C" level or aspiring "C" level executive should emphasize and it is not what you have done. It is not about tactics. It is about problem solving, strategy, demonstrating innovative thinking and results. The resume is action oriented and "reeks" of energy and impact.

Assuming you conveyed that message, and you are now moving through a series of interviews with a consultant/headhunter like me and then the corporate team, here is how to continue to compete.

First, here is a story of what not to do.

My client created a new position to head up the communications function. The company had been conservative and was carefully moving in a new direction by creating the position. While a job description talked about a relationship approximately three levels away from the Chairman, this job was critical to him and the leadership team. The unsaid but understood criteria were: could this hire be "blessed" by the leadership team and would the Chairman want to work with this person?

Like many "C" level jobs today, titles do not mean the incumbent orchestrates the work of others. These are "working" jobs and making sure the finalists are "hands on" is part of the screening process. At the same time, this organization would only hire an individual with the sophistication to be in a room with the Chairman and add value to the conversation (yet know his/her place and be appropriately deferential).

The resume of the candidate was excellent. His experience and the industries he was familiar with would make for an easy transition to this new organization. He was interested in the position and also saw the connection between his prior experience and this new opportunity, which was career enhancing.

I spent about an hour talking to this candidate and determined that he met our base line: he had done the work we were interested in. He was a "hands on" performer. This is the threshold to begin seriously evaluating a potential finalist.

There are two schools of thought about what I did next. Let me explain them and tell you why I made my decision.

In companies where finalists are invited for a series of meetings, some organizations will not interview candidates over a meal. They feel it is too distracting and unfair to the candidate. In some cases, the hiring manager finds it awkward to meet for breakfast or lunch and will only schedule formal interviews.

For "C" level jobs, while the job description will not explicitly say so, it is imperative that the new hire be seen as a peer who can interact in the various working situations he will find himself. His social skills are part of the job requirement and it is critical to know how he will behave in an informal setting at a luncheon or reception. I need to be able to assure my client a finalist will behave appropriately. That is why for senior level searches, a personal meeting over a meal is essential, in my opinion.

Back to our candidate - I offered to take him to lunch after our phone interview. We had already had our in-depth discussion about the details of his work experience and our lunch would not become a "formal" interview. Instead, we could talk about a variety of work and non-work experiences.

He had been alerted that my client believed its employees should dress professionally. He took that information seriously and came in a suit, formal business shirt and tie. Alas, it went down-hill from there.

The restaurant we selected was a favorite of his and he was really looking forward to the meal itself. The food he ordered was what he liked, but it was messy and hard to eat. He immediately tucked a napkin under his chin, spread it out and dug in.

During the conversation, I talked about the challenges of the position and his work experience. It was a very pleasant discussion where I also mentioned the rigor of the interviewing process. He continued to emphasize his achievements and ability to turn out award winning work. He thought he had a lot to offer. It wasn’t until we were ready to leave the table that he remembered to remove his napkin which obviously protected a tie he liked.

I reported all of these details back to my client and raised a cautionary note about how the luncheon had proceeded. The HR team had already screened him and decided, nevertheless, to bring him in for a lunch with several members of the leadership team.

The candidate was very pleased to know he was being invited back. He considered this an excellent opportunity. He had a busy schedule but was able to arrange a meeting within a week. During this process, he had received background information about the company and the position. There was also a webcast available to him.

When he joined the group for lunch, the focus of their questions was not on his achievements or work record. They wanted to know how he reacted to the information about the company and how his experience prepared him to help the organization. They knew he was qualified. Now the discussion was about problem solving and how effectively he could establish a rapport with them.

Despite the information provided to him, he did not come prepared to engage in a meaningful discussion about the company and admitted that he had not had the time to listen to the latest webcast or read the transcript. When we debriefed, he said that he did not expect the conversation to be about the company. He expected them to ask him about his background. Needless to say, he did not receive an offer.

Here is what a candidate for a leadership position should do to get the process right.

If there is a search professional involved, the focus of the initial interview is on qualifications. That is where you have to present yourself as stronger than a Director and ready to take on a "C" level role, if you do not already have that title. Balance the discussion between mastery of the Director-level job and strategic contributions. If you are already the head of a function, be prepared to talk about how you solved business problems, reorganized a function, or innovated in some way for the organization through communications.

Prepare for that first conversation by asking for a job description, non-published material (if not confidential) and reading about the company. Adjust the direction of your achievements to relate to the issues you believe the company is facing. Do not assume. Confirm these issues are relevant before you launch into a story about how you helped your organization. Also, ask how much time has been allocated for the conversation. If you tend to tell long stories, put a clock in front of you (if this is a phone interview) and discipline yourself to keep your answers brief. Ask the interviewer about the company, his/her observations about the culture and what working with the organization is like.

If you need help staying on topic, jot notes before the conversation and take notes as you proceed. Do not "wing" this interview because you assume it will be easy and because you have an excellent track record. It takes practice to be relevant, succinct and focused.

About those "informal" luncheon meetings - remember you are "on." Every detail is important. Allow enough time to arrive so you don’t feel rushed. Know the dress code of the company and dress as though you worked there or one level up if the code is informal. Know the company story and that means checking the web site or other sources right up to the last minute. A press release that is only a day old could be relevant to the luncheon conversation.

One rule is: never go hungry to an interview over lunch. This meeting is a test of your social skills. Do not concentrate on the food. Eat ahead and follow the lead of your hosts and how they order. Do not select a salad course if they skip it. Chose something easy to eat that won’t stain a shirt or tie or distract from the conversation. Avoid sandwiches or anything you eat by hand. Do not order alcohol at lunch. Over dinner if your hosts order alcohol before you do, you can follow suit but never more than one drink.

These rules apply to the interview with the HR team or recruiter and they apply as well to a meeting with the executive team.

Here is additional advice about how to prepare specifically for a meeting with the executive team. Most importantly, these are not communications people and assume they do not understand communications terms. Practice telling a story about how you solved a problem that relates to the company so that you remove all the jargon. Translate communications speak to business speak.

Know their business issues based on what your research about the company tells you and broach these topics. Be thoroughly briefed so you are confident of your information and deferential - say that these are observations as an outsider and invite comments. Relate their issues to your work experience and tell stories about how you solved problems for your organization. After you describe how you see issues that might be relevant, ask them (without sharing confidential information, of course) what they see as issues where communications can be valuable.

Here is where my comment about what the hiring team "thinks" it needs is relevant. My experience has been that the client (if no one on the team is in communications or IR) rarely knows beyond a basic "headline" what the job consists of. I have seen job descriptions for one position outline a list of departmental activities that can only be accomplished with a staff of three professionals, at a minimum. Here is where you can demonstrate your knowledge and leadership by politely probing for the key priorities of the position and then discussing expectations for achieving their most important objectives.

I also think it is important to ask about the mission and culture and listen to the various viewpoints expressed. Are they aligned? At this point in the conversation, either you are having a free flowing discussion or the chemistry hasn’t clicked.

BTW, the same guidelines apply in a one-to-one discussion with the CEO. In addition, research and study his/her biography to find out about hobbies, awards, favorite charities, etc. This will help to establish a personal rapport.

If after all this preparation and effort, the chemistry is not there, graciously end the process. You have done your best.

"WHAT IS THE NUMBER?"

Negotiating for a corporate VP level salary and total compensation package can be undermined at the "get go" if you fall into the trap of answering the question, "What is the number?" So, what is the way to take the high road (not appear greedy) and still negotiate for the increase you want?

I have often said common sense is a lost art. Somehow when a "C" level executive starts the job hunting process, he stops thinking like an executive who has hired over a dozen professionals. If he makes this basic mistake at the "get go" and answers the question, it can haunt him right up until the end of the search when the offer is made.

Think about what it is like to hire a Director or Assistant VP. When your HR people establish a salary range and determine what bonus level and/or signing bonuses are possible, you are relying on them to be current with the market. You have been busy doing your job and have not made a science out of developing competitive compensation packages for your group.

When you create a package, to keep things simple, you end up with a "number" that is what you can offer the new hire, without doing battle with your compensation team. For example, if the range is up to $150,000 and the midpoint is $130,000, you don’t expect the offer to be above $130,000. You intend to be able to "play" with the additional pieces of the compensation program to make the offer attractive.

As you identify candidates, you ask for current base salary and that becomes their "number." You do a quick mental check to be sure the salary is in the range you think you can afford so you are not wasting your time. That then becomes the number on file and the number your HR team will work with if an offer is made. Changing the number is incredibly difficult once it ripples through the hiring team. Unfortunately, that number is often too low and inaccurate.

What’s wrong with this picture? If you are now in the reverse role as the candidate, how can you sidestep having that number (your current base salary) haunt you when the offer is made?

Here’s what I recommend. Under NO circumstances do you want to put a stake in the ground with a current compensation figure at the start of this process. Once that number is circulated in an email, it travels with your record. Frequently, a senior executive who is not looking and is being contacted by a search executive will share a base compensation figure early in the process to determine if the new opportunity is attractive. I repeat, DO NOT PROVIDE A FIGURE.

Compensation is not one figure, it is a moving target. It is not a "number," it is a complex group of numbers that can be on the verge of changing. It is your job to present the "story" of your compensation and not take the question literally.

That means if you have not thought about compensation when you receive a call from a "headhunter" and you are possibly interested in the search s/he is conducting, it is time to look at your current and near term estimated earnings. Also, what are you leaving behind? Timing is critical for raises and bonuses and must be considered. This is not as simple a formula as you think.

Once you have those numbers, get back to the search person with a comprehensive set of figures and it should be in writing. If any figure is an approximation, indicate that along with a timeframe to provide more precise data.

Here’s how to do your homework before you provide total compensation information (not base salary). Let’s look at computing compensation using real numbers with the example below.

Current Base Salary: $250,000.00 with raise shortly

Bonus potential: $40,000. This is a conservative estimate based on prior history: It is 15% of base (at the higher level you will be at within a matter of weeks). Of course, you must be currently employed at the company to collect this amount and it is normally awarded in February. (Other components may be added such as stock based upon overall company performance.) This suggests that either the offer makes you whole via a signing bonus if you leave before you can collect the $40,000, or you sit tight until you collect it.

Annual Performance and Salary review: $12,500 increase. The increase is due (let’s assume) in late October in conjunction with your performance review. Stock awards may also be granted for outstanding performance. Prior raises have been in the order of 5% along with restricted shares of stock and options. Your company has a history of counter offers so you can estimate that your normal raise of $12,500 will be accelerated and increased most likely on the order of another 5%.

Stock: what you will leave behind? Like many companies, your stock is vesting on a formula where no matter when you resign; you will lose a portion of the value. Depending upon how well the company is doing, particularly in these times, the value of what you leave behind can be from $25,000-$75,000 or more. (Conversely, the stock could be underwater now with better prospects later if you stay.)

Vacation: four weeks. As a senior officer you have a four week vacation benefit that you will not normally receive in your new position. Generally, you can negotiate for three weeks but you will need to ask for it.

Special Benefits: how to value them? At many companies, there are benefits that are unique to the organization. They may be in the form of health programs, special events, company trips for spouse, etc. Attach a dollar value to them since they will not translate into what the new organization offers.

401K contributions and other company funded benefits: will you lose them? If you leave in the middle of a year, do you lose the company’s contribution? When will your new employer begin contributing to your 401K? Will there be a gap and a loss of benefits? (Hopefully not, but it is worth asking.)

Having done your research, when a potential employer asks about compensation, here is what I would suggest. First, do not presume to ask for a particular figure; you are simply presenting factual information that will help the hiring organization understand what your numbers are. This is a non-threatening, reasonable approach. Second, put the information in writing and simplify the figures.

Base Salary: estimate your new salary and do not give a current figure. Say, "As of late October, I receive a normal raise bringing my salary (that I estimate) to: $262,000." Promise to provide the precise number as soon as you know what it is. Do not state your base salary of today if you are within weeks of a raise.

Bonus: "My bonus award is conservatively estimated at 15% of base which I will receive in February. I will be notified of the precise amount in December." (If that is the case or whenever the precise figure is known.) "I estimate the award at approximately $40,000."

Stock: "I will receive stock awards in conjunction with my bonus and raise. While it is hard to put a precise value on the stock, I will leave behind approximately $xxxxx should I leave the company in February of ’09" (for example).

For you and the hiring organization, these are compensation figures that give a more complete picture and allow for accurate comparisons. Also, right at the beginning of the process, you have set realistic expectations about what the compensation numbers would need to total for it to make any sense to proceed.

Once you know you are a finalist, there is another point to consider depending upon what you require for a base. Some organizations offer a comprehensive compensation package with excellent long-term incentives that over time will be very lucrative. However, they do not offer salaries that are particularly attractive. Their point is if you are loyal and look at the long term, you will make a great deal of money.

It is important during the course of negotiations to indicate what, at a minimum, you would need for a salary that would cover family living expenses while you are earning these longer term benefits. In some instances, once this figure is on the table, the hiring organization provides a signing bonus to close a gap.

This approach should avoid the pitfall of answering the wrong question that has no good answer, which is: "What is THE number?"

WHEN THE CEO’s HEADHUNTER CALLS, ARE YOU READY TO BE PUT IN “PLAY?”

WHEN THE CEO’s HEADHUNTER CALLS, ARE YOU READY TO BE PUT IN “PLAY?”

This article was inspired by a true story of a top-flight corporate communications executive who was completely focused on meeting the needs of her organization. She hardly gave any thought to the seemingly innocuous call from a polite and cordial “headhunter” (and the word really applies in this case) who wanted to take her to lunch. Here is how the story played out along with the behind-the-scenes dynamics.

Before the story unfolds, here are several “rules” of the road. The first operating principle in dealing with executive search consultants who work at the CEO and “C” levels is that nothing they do in the line of work is casual. There is no such thing as being nice for nice sake. There is always an agenda. These folks make seven figure salaries and they do not waste their time. The reason they earn these fees is because they have all the skills and talents to woo the brightest and the best for their clients.

They are smart, sophisticated, excellent judges of character and know how to maneuver the people that they deem worthy of their attention in their client’s direction. They use flattery, logic and a light touch to keep the stress out of their “pitch” to woo a potential candidate. If there is too much pressure applied to a busy and harried candidate, s/he will simply not participate. The goal is to ensnare a candidate so that s/he becomes a finalist for a job before any serious thought has been given to whether or not s/he is “in play.”

The second principle is do not underestimate the amount of time and research that has gone into selecting you as a possible candidate the CEO would like to hire. The largest search firms have senior partners with long-term relationships with the CEOs of major corporations. Those relationships are built on trust and knowing the characteristics that are important to the head of the company. Using networks built upon years of work and personal recommendations from other leaders, an “A” list is formed and certain names come up again and again. It is never hard to find out a great deal about a potential candidate with the networks these search firms have.

Now, back to my client and the story.

The top communications/IR executives I know are all working at maximum capacity. They are trusted by the heads of their companies and they participate in strategic business decisions as well as lead and manage their departments. They are generally thinking about company issues and devoting little or no attention to their own career paths. That is not necessarily a negative, since their success will be recognized either within the organization and/or noted by companies who recognize excellence in communications/IR programs.

My client was no exception; she was completely engaged in her work when the phone rang. The call was from a senior associate at a well-respected global search firm. He was coming to town, “heard good things about her” and offered to take her to lunch. She protested that she was not job hunting and not ready to consider a move. Still, she wondered if she should take him up on his offer. He was very charming, said he would like to meet her and that it was no problem that she was not job hunting. Having stated her position and knowing she was being completely honest about her situation, she felt there was nothing to lose by accepting the luncheon invitation. After all, she thought, it was just lunch.

The meeting was a contrived event.

What she didn’t know was that this search executive didn’t just happen to be in town and free to take her to lunch. It was all contrived to make it appear quite casual, but his goal was to determine if she was as good as he had heard and if he felt she would impress the CEO he represented. If he felt she wasn’t the right fit, it would have ended with a polite thank you.

The lunch went well from the search associate’s perspective and he could now put all the pieces together: the candidate lived up to her reputation, it appeared the “fit” was really good and she now moved up the list as one of the top prospects for a post reporting directly to the CEO. Meanwhile, the only thought my client gave to the situation was that it was a pleasant lunch and perhaps an investment in the future.

After a few days, the search executive called back to say there is a job working for a top CEO of an organization with all sorts of interesting challenges. He flattered her and said his client understood that she was not really looking but that several people in the organization would like to get to know her and talk about the position. He assured her that his client knew she was not a serious candidate but there was no harm in a few conversations.

Easing into the second round

With little reflection about what she was possibly committing to, she agreed to have a talk with a few of the key executives of the company. This was arranged via phone over the course of several days. All along, in her mind, these were not serious conversations about taking a job, since she has told them she is not “looking at making a move.” Her conscience is clear; she has made no false representations about her intentions. She is simply discussing a position with no commitment of any kind.

These conversations occur and once again, the leadership team is impressed. The search consultant continues to stay in touch with her, reassuring her she is talented and the executives she talked to were delighted to get to know her. The game continues with the search executive specifically not saying, “We are seriously considering you for the position.” That would set off alarms with my client who is still thinking this is just a casual situation.

Becoming a finalist

Meanwhile, the search executive is huddling with his client. They are looking at a short list of top prospects and my client is one of the finalists. While she thinks she has done nothing that would encourage them to think she is interested, they are plotting a strategy to present her to the CEO.

It seems hard to imagine that someone as capable and talented as my client would naively think this is not a serious situation. However, I can assure you, that is precisely what she was thinking. Part of the reason was the lack of any clear line of demarcation between being a “shopper” and a “serious candidate.” This was a line that was purposely blurred so that there would be no concern about the path she was on.

There was never a moment in this process where she stopped to say, “This is getting serious; I need to decide if I want to move ahead.” Each time when she said she was not job hunting, they agreed with her. She was proceeding through a normal interviewing process without having to commit to being a candidate. The search executive and his client were willing to invest the time into convincing my client that she should take the job if she were their finalist. They knew that at the offer stage, there was a risk that she would, at long last, examine the situation seriously and turn them down. They were confident, however, that they were presenting their opportunity persuasively and expected she would accept the job.

How could she meet the CEO and not be a candidate?

Since this job reported to the CEO, the search executive could not determine if my client were the finalist for the position until she could meet him. Since she was not a “formal” candidate, he could not suggest she take time off from work to travel and then spend a day at company headquarters.

It appeared that she was the first choice for the position assuming the chemistry was “right” with the CEO. Yet, she had made no commitment about taking the job. Here is how the search executive maneuvered her into the meeting with the CEO.

He had laid the groundwork for this next step. He had already discussed the position with my client and she was aware it was an appealing opportunity. One of the “selling points” about the job was that it was critical to the CEO. He was looking for an advisor/strategist as his Corporate VP of Communications.

The CEO is an “enlightened” leader and being invited to meet someone of that caliber is intriguing and a special opportunity. The search executive mentions that the CEO is aware of my client and impressed with her credentials. He also says the CEO will be in town. He is flying in for a meeting locally and could set up an appointment with her.

The search executive does not demand that my client commit to being a candidate. He says this would be a meeting to see how they feel about each other. He is now closing in on her and hinting that there could be serious interest. He is preparing her for a potential offer (which he expects to extend if all goes as anticipated). He still leaves the door open (in how he positions the interview) for this to be an exploratory meeting.

For my client, the attention and interest on the part of the CEO is too appealing to turn down. The search consultant has given her some wiggle room to feel she is still not pursuing a position. And, she is meeting him on her turf.

In the course of the interview, the CEO treats the candidate as a finalist. He talks about the position and what are the challenges and opportunities with the company. He is persuasive, charming and powerful. He knows she has been eased into this interview but now delivers the message that he would like to hire her. This is the first instance where she realizes she is “in play.” The CEO requests references anticipating an offer will be extended.

My client is impressed and swayed by the CEO. She begins the process of asking for references.

Let’s pause to analyze the situation. Here is a top communications executive (which is why she was sought after), respected by industry leaders for her excellent work, that surprise, surprise, finds herself meeting the CEO. She is about to be offered a position she never knew she wanted in an industry (upon reflection) that was not of compelling interest.

Why would she want to accept an offer? The answer is not for very good reasons. She never considered herself a “serious” candidate until she reached the final stages of the search when she was meeting with a charismatic CEO. Also, she had never stopped to analyze the situation beyond the surface assurances that this was an exploratory process.

Four rules to avoid being led to the altar

Here are a few rules that should never be broken if you are to avoid this situation. First, a “get to know the headhunter” meeting, (assuming the headhunter is reliable) is always a good idea. Second, if the search consultant mentions a client and a potential opportunity (even an exploratory one), do not explore it further until you know how you feel about a change. Third, take the time to decide if you are ready to start a process that will require time and commitment if handled professionally. Fourth, if you are open to making a change, what does that need to look like? Without that grounding, it is easy to be swept away by experts who will flatter and maneuver you in directions you never intended to go.

Do not assume that you will be able to withdraw as a candidate anywhere along the interviewing trail if it does not “work out.” That lack of clarity will lead to confusion, escalate the time wasted and add stress to the decision that you will ultimately make. In the end, if you should not be making a move, you will, hopefully, pay attention to your “gut” and say “no.”

The endgame

Now, back to my client. She was at the point where she knew an offer was the next step. She was asked for references and began the process of contacting the CEOs and leaders she had worked for in the past. It appeared that despite her exploratory, non-committal approach to this process, she was “sold” on this new job. The search consultant had done his job well.

In a strange turn of events, my client talked to her former CEO (she reported to him directly) about the new opportunity. This CEO did not know she was open to making a move until she asked him to be a reference. Within a day, the CEO, who was now leading a major corporation in an industry segment my client knew well, offered her a VP Corporate Communications position. His vision was to change the corporate culture and use communications as a strategic part of the effort.

It was only then that she realized this new opportunity was precisely a fit and the other position was nowhere as good a situation for her. She accepted the second offer immediately. She was extremely lucky that she was able to make the right choice and she has been wildly successful.

The moral to this story is, don’t underestimate the search game and where you could end up. Look at the underlying mechanics and expect that everyone has an agenda.

Obama's Economic Advisors

Lily E. Hotmire Memorial Fund

September 18, 2008

Dear Friends,

As many of you know, since Lily died last year, we have intended to coordinate an effort to commemorate her precious life. Over the past year, we have had the heartbreaking privilege of befriending other families who have lost children to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). While movements like the "Back to Sleep Campaign" have been apparently successful in reducing the number of unexplained infant deaths, SIDS continues to be the leading cause of death among infants between one month and one year old. There is still so much mystery behind the cause(s) of SIDS.

We recognize there are aspects to life that only God understands. However, experiencing the tragic loss of our child to SIDS has compelled us to conclude that SIDS should not remain one of those mysteries.

We have established the Lily E. Hotmire Memorial Fund through the CJ Foundation for SIDS. The CJ Foundation is "a national nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting the special needs of the SIDS community through funding SIDS research, support services and public awareness programs." (www.cjsids.com)

The CJ Foundation funds groundbreaking SIDS research. All contributions to the Lily E. Hotmire Memorial Fund will be invested in their recent endeavor, the CJ SIDS Research Initiative.

This year, Lily’s memorial fund will be inaugurated with a fundraiser. On Sunday, October 26th, the Marine Corps Marathon (MCM) will sponsor a 10K (6.2 miles), concurrent with its marathon in DC. I (Erica) intend to run in the 10K and I invite you to join me as a member of Tiger Lily's Team. We will not be an official team for MCM10K; we can only sign up as individuals. However, on race day, Tiger Lily's Team will meet up beforehand and start the race together.

Thus far, there are more than 40 runners on Tiger Lily's Team and we could not be more touched by this outpouring of support! Online registration ($50 fee) for the race will remain open until September 30th. ( http://www.marinemarathon.com/weekend_events/10k.htm ) If you are interested in joining Tiger Lily's Team, please register and let us know!

Each runner will commit to raising at least $100 for the Lily E. Hotmire Memorial Fund. If you would like to help with fundraising, but do not wish to run, you can still be a member of our team. Runners and Non-runners can raise or donate:

- $100 to be a "Team Member"

- $250 to be a "Team Captain"

- $500 to be a "Champion"

Anyone who raises or donates at least $100 will be invited to our home for a casual dinner the night of the race. The dinner will be an opportunity to thank our runners and fundraisers, share our vision for the Lily E. Hotmire Memorial Fund, and remember our sweet Lily.

To contribute, visit www.cjsids.com and click on “Make a Donation.” Then, select Lily E. Hotmire Memorial Fund under Donation Category. In order to track the amount of money you have raised, please ask your donors to make their donation “in honor of” you.

Thank you for honoring Lily by supporting SIDS research. For more info rmation or if you have decided to run with us, please contact Erica at LilysMemorialFund@yahoo.com.

With gratitude,

Erica & Erik Hotmire

Chinese Red Alert

Business ethics and business law do sometimes collide. But such problems are especially acute in China, where managers' interests are closely aligned to local Party bosses. Chinese managers' job performance is often based on how many jobs they create and how many widgets they churn out, not something as intangible as consumer protection, let alone "brand reputation."

Nor is there any self-correcting mechanism at work in China. Local health regulators often report to local government officials -- the same officials who own the companies that inspectors are supposed to be monitoring. Tort claims can't be brought by customers because the judiciary isn't independent. The state-owned press isn't free to ferret out corruption.

That leaves foreign JV partners as the last line of defense for their customers. Smart foreign firms have either installed their own people in China to supervise production or ditched minority stakeholdings altogether in favor of wholly owned operations. Mattel, for instance, owns many of its factories in China. That didn't avert a problem with lead paint in toys, but when problems were discovered, Mattel could move quickly to initiate a recall and regain its customers' trust. Fonterra, on the other hand, shared its safety-monitoring expertise with Sanlu and trusted it was being followed. It wasn't.

The Chinese government is making a show of its "justice," firing the local Party bosses and Sanlu's management team. National-level officials are scrambling to show that they're in control so people don't riot in the streets and demand their heads. Meanwhile the scandal spreads: In the past week, authorities have turned up contamination problems at as many as 21 other dairy companies. In the wake of disasters, as in the Sanlu case, Beijing usually tightens enforcement and introduces new regulations. But regulation can only accomplish so much.

It's the system itself, not just the company or the dairy industry, that's broken. Until the government -- and the Communist Party -- break their ties with business, managers' incentives will always be aligned with those of their political bosses, not their customers. In the meantime, made-in-China products will come under increasing scrutiny from foreign companies that make them there, and from consumers who buy them. None of this will begin to compensate the families who have lost their children.

Victory Is an Orphan in Iraq

When it comes to Iraq, a majority of Americans simply won't take yes for an answer.

The surge is succeeding. Security in Iraq's three major cities has vastly improved. The Iraqi army is finally asserting control. American casualties are at their lowest since 2003. Civilian deaths, kidnappings and car bombings have plummeted. Al Qaeda is now virtually friendless in Iraq. Most important, the Shiite and Sunni mainstream are beginning to participate in their own liberation.

Yet instead of rejoicing and a ticker-tape parade, our political leaders and opinion makers speak of immediate timetables for the contraction and withdrawal of our troops, the counting of our losses and the atonement for our sins. Few speak of the war with any sense of pride or patriotism. Never before has a nation so distanced itself from a military triumph. There is an overarching taboo associated with any acknowledgment that it may have benefited Iraqis and Americans. Buried beneath the mosh pit of President Bush's declining approval ratings, Iraq remains a continuing source of shame.

Many say that Saddam Hussein never posed a threat to our security. That by expending military resources in Iraq we squandered the chance to capture Osama bin Laden, and allowed the Taliban to rise from the dead in Afghanistan. That Iran pressed forward with its nuclear ambitions, knowing that we were so alienated in the region and had so stretched our military capacity that we couldn't stop them.

Surely it would have been best had the U.S. been able to mobilize an appropriate and forceful response in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. But no one seriously believes bin Laden fell off the radar of our priorities simply because this part of the world is so rich in terror and instability.

Given the state of the world after 9/11, it was a judgment call as to where our interests would best be served, and where military force would do the most good. Saddam's Iraq had been one of terrorism's most reliable and dangerous state sponsors. Iraq was not merely an oil-rich sideshow, ultimately irrelevant to our justifiable war against terror.

It is true that the full case for going to war in Iraq was not adequately presented -- although humanitarian reasons for deposing Saddam were certainly present, and we should not have depended alone on the presence of weapons of mass destruction. It is also true that we were pathetically ill-prepared for what we would find in Iraq, and how we would be perceived once we arrived. And the disgraceful practices at Abu Ghraib were undeniably unworthy of the sacrifices our soldiers otherwise made.

Yes, there are many truths about the war in Iraq. But to say America fought an ill-advised war that was both a lost cause and a total loss is surely not one of them.

Unfortunately, the American mainstream hasn't sufficiently found itself on this war yet. There has been no coalescence around a coherent set of facts. Public opinion may be free in America, but sometimes it is shaped by subtle intimidation. Given all the loud rhetoric of defeat and despair, most Americans haven't felt secure enough to look at the war as it is rather than what they have been told to believe.

There is nothing wrong with establishing timetables for our departure -- as long as we are equally prepared to accept the accolades of our hard-won struggle. Leaving Iraq, whenever that date may be, should be done not from a position of defeat and disgust, but rather with the pride and gratitude that our troops deserve for a job well done.

Obama Needs to Sell Himself, Not Attack McCain

Be careful not to assign too much scientific precision to polls. They aren't as accurate as portrayed. But several different surveys at roughly the same time that show similar results are useful guides. So three trends in recent polls must worry Sen. Barack Obama and encourage Sen. John McCain.

First, an average of seven national polls the week before the Democratic convention showed Mr. Obama leading Mr. McCain by two points. By the middle of the next week, Mr. Obama's lead had climbed to almost eight points. Now, nearly two weeks later, Mr. McCain has a lead of roughly two points. Since the middle of the GOP convention, one out of every 10 voters has changed their preference -- a significant movement this late in the campaign.

That movement comes, in part, from gains Mr. McCain has made on personal leadership attributes. In the latest Washington Post/ABC poll, for example, he lengthened his lead on the question of who would be a better commander in chief (he's now ahead by 45 points). He is also seen as the stronger leader, and as the more honest and trustworthy candidate. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama saw his lead on who would "bring needed change" drop by 20 points.

The same survey found that 48% of Americans consider Mr. Obama unqualified for the presidency, virtually unchanged from 46% in March and June. When Fox News asked voters whom they would ask for advice for the toughest decision in their life, voters favored Mr. McCain by a 50% to 34% margin.

There is a similar pattern on issues. Both the Fox News and Washington Post/ABC polls showed Mr. McCain's advantages grew on terror, Iraq and an "unexpected major crisis," while he erased Mr. Obama's edge on energy, and cut the Democrat's lead on both the economy and the deficit to acceptable levels.

Perhaps most surprising of all, five recent national polls have shown a significant tightening in party identification, eroding a big lead Democrats have enjoyed since 2006.

How durable are these changes? We don't know. But opinions solidify as an election approaches, and this one is now only 47 days away.

There are a number of reasons for these changes. The Democrats had a less successful convention. Sen. Joe Biden doesn't reinforce, but instead conflicts with, Mr. Obama's change message. And the Republicans had a good convention and a great introduction of Gov. Sarah Palin as Mr. McCain's running mate. She has a rare visceral connection with both swing and base voters.

It's also possible that the do-nothing Congress is dragging down the Democrats' brand.

Events have intruded, often to Mr. McCain's benefit. He turned rising oil prices to his advantage by embracing offshore drilling. Russia's invasion of Georgia highlighted Mr. McCain's foreign policy credentials (and may have compelled Mr. Obama to add Mr. Biden, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, to his ticket).

The idealism and discipline that led to Mr. Obama's early primary victories has been replaced by unattractive attacks on Mr. McCain. Both campaigns have engaged in a tit-for-tat, but because Mr. Obama ran on "turning the page" on "old politics," he suffers more than Mr. McCain, especially since his attacks are more fundamentally unfair.

It is a mistake for Mr. Obama to spend a lot of time attacking Mr. McCain. In the past week, he, his surrogates or his ads have mocked Mr. McCain's inability to use a keyboard (an activity, like combing his hair or tying his tie, that Mr. McCain has difficulty with because of war wounds), claimed his administration would be riddled with lobbyists, tried to make an issue of his age and successful cancer treatment, missed no chance to suggest he'd be President George W. Bush's third term, and called him "dishonorable." This last charge is particularly foolish. It's one of the last things voters will believe about John McCain.

The people who can be won over by shouting "McCain is Bush" long ago sided with Mr. Obama. That message does not resonate with undecided voters. The Democrat should instead spend every moment spelling out what he would do to address the country's challenges.

This election is not fundamentally about Mr. McCain. It is much more about people's persistent doubts concerning Mr. Obama. The only way to reassure them is to provide a compelling, forward-looking agenda. That sounds obvious, but the Obama campaign seems to be betting on making Mr. McCain an unacceptable choice by striking at his character. Mr. McCain has absorbed many harder blows than anything the Obama campaign can throw his way.

In a revealing slip in an interview with ABC recently, Mr. Obama said, "If we're going to ask questions about who has been promulgating negative ads that are completely unrelated to the issues at hand, I think I win that contest pretty handily." That he is in fact winning the contest for the most negative campaign could well spell his defeat.

Mr. Rove is a former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

Will McCain Waste Palin?

Forget the Tina Fey SNL mockery and all the marginalia being written about Sarah Palin now. She did four real things in Alaska that make her fit for anyone interested in a reform presidency.

She took on: her party's state chairman, her party's state attorney general, GOP Gov. Frank Murkowski's tainted gas pipeline project, and then she supported a GOP candidate who ran against Alaska's "untouchable" GOP congressional earmarker, Don Young.

One way or another, each episode involved severing the sleazy ties that bind public officials to grasping commercial interests, something even the Democratic left purports to favor.

It isn't just Washington and Juneau. You could open the nozzle on the same reform fire hose to wash the public-private slime out of the capital hallways of New York, New Jersey, California, Illinois and onward.

You say Sarah Palin doesn't have enough "experience" to run Washington? Washington is barely fit to be run.

The problem isn't standard political corruption. The problem is that the $2.8 trillion federal budget is a vast ocean of Beltway pilot fish feeding off scraps from the whale -- lawyers, lobbyists, ex-Members of Congress. No one runs the Sea of Washington. It's too big, too deep.

...

Unfocused "reform" rhetoric from Mr. McCain isn't enough. The public has been there, heard that. Sen. McCain should talk about what he knows -- fat Fannie and Freddie, farm-bill bloat, the ethanol subsidy fiasco, the federal procurement mess. Show people Gov. Palin's 18 single-spaced pages of 2007 vetoes. Then identify Congress's bipartisan supporters of the Legislative Line-Item Veto Act and ask the voters' support. Appear with GOP congressman from Sarah's new generation who want to help -- Eric Cantor of Virginia, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, Kevin McCarthy of California. There are others.

Promise to spend the first two years on this historic political reform effort, and if a Democratic Congress laughs, promise to barnstorm in 2010 for a Congress willing to act, from any party.

One hears talk of John McCain's temper. My guess is voters want someone to lose it with Washington, big time. Oh, and he should ask what's the difference between a reformist pit bull and a six-term senator. It isn't lipstick.

Rose vs. Jeter

The Deeper the Downturn, The Quicker the Recovery

Asia learned all about the downside of debt 10 years ago. Like other emerging markets, Asia also has dramatically less exposure to the curse of securitization run amok, since regulators have maintained a healthy old-fashioned preference for deposit-funded banking systems.

Regulators in the West are now belatedly discovering old-fashioned virtues. The failure of Lehman Brothers will prove the catalyst long needed to precipitate the painful but necessary collapse of the shadow banking system, however deflationary that process.

The only consolation from the pain ahead is that the deeper the downturn, the quicker the recovery. Asia discovered this truth in the late 1990s, but Washington politics will likely prevent such a V-shaped downturn. This means bad debts may be warehoused, Japanese-style, resulting in an extended period of lackluster growth in the U.S. -- and indeed in Euroland, where financial problems are almost as critical, if rather less transparent.

The preferred policy in the U.S. should be a new Resolution Trust Corporation, which emerged in the wake of the savings-and-loan crisis of the 1980s, and which sold distressed assets. This is the opposite of what Mr. Paulson announced last week regarding the monstrous hybrids, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, where the U.S. Treasury pledged to buy Fannie- and Freddie-guaranteed mortgages, thereby further putting U.S. taxpayers on the hook.

Still, one point is clear. Policy makers should stop pretending there are easy options. Mr. Paulson has at least started in this direction -- after more than a year when virtually every major central banker, every major finance minister and every major banking regulator has been consistently wrong in his predictions. It is time for some humility in the face of the corrective actions of the markets.

Democrats Still Aren't Serious About Drilling

Palin and the 'Experience' Canard

Ismael Roldan

If a Biden Commits a Gaffe In the Forest…