Blowin' In The Wind

Hillary and Obama

I loved the Guardian report on the Elton John concert for Hillary Clinton in New York, especially the intro:

Elton John is well qualified in surviving against the odds, and last night he took to the stage and sang his heart out for someone else who refuses to quit: Hillary Clinton.

They may be battling for a lost cause, but that's the thing about us baby boomers: we are hopelessly romantic.

Okay, romantic may not be the right word to use about the Clintons, but how about dogged and true?

Even their critics will concede the Clintons are dogged and true to their own ambitions at least -- and I think, with all her spunk, Hillary is a hell of a lady.

Yes, age is beginning to show on her, she is not as youthful as Obama, she may not have his gift for words, she has even been known to fib at times, but she is passionate and true to her convictions. Yes, she has changed her stand on Nafta and the Iraq war, but that may be because she now sees they are making people suffer. Why should that be seen as opportunism and not concern for the people? If she didn't care for the people, she wouldn't have been fighting for universal health care.

Elton John in his passionate support for Hillary accused Americans of misogyny. He said:

"I'm amazed by the misogynistic attitudes of some of the people in this country. And I say to hell with them ... I love you Hillary, I'll be there for you."

I don't think misogyny is the only culprit here.

The fact is Barack Obama is eloquent, charismatic, seen as a visionary, and possesses a shrewd intelligence. He may be just what America needs -- an astute politician whose own interest tallies with national interest. Both he and America gain, for example, by overcoming racial differences. He appeals to both liberals and independents and is now trying to win over the anti-gun control lobby as well. A leader who appeals to such diverse groups is likely to unite the nation.

But the fact is, the Democrats have not seen such a divisive nomination battle for a long time.

Hillary remarkably continues to win in the big states despite being outspent by Obama and bombarded with constant media criticism.

Her appeal was vividly summed up in a Salon headline: Hillary's bridge back to the 20th century. The report said:

With recession looming, Clinton banks on '90s nostalgia, reminding Pennsylvania voters of the good old days of her husband's administration.

"Clinton's version of the '90s is a little airbrushed," Salon added.

But there is no doubt that the American economy was stronger and American influence greater during the Clinton administration.

Hillary is offering neither visions nor illusions in harking back to that era. She is recalling the honest truth.

Technorati Tags: hillary clinton,obama

China violating national sovereignty?

Chinese nationalism goes global and it's treading on other nations' sovereignty. I am not talking of Tibet but Britain, France and America.

This picture from the San Francisco Chronicle shows how heated the confrontation was as San Francisco witnessed a Chinese show of strength. The Chronicle reported:

For all the talk of protests leading up to the Olympic torch relay, we didn't hear much from the supporters of China.

We learned why early on Wednesday morning. They planned to take over the event.

By 10 a.m. at AT&T Park, where the torch run was supposed to begin, it was obvious that the fix was in.

Thousands of supporters were already there, unloaded from dozens of buses parked across from the ball park. (One torch relay insider told me some in the crowd had been bused from as far away as Los Angeles.) During the day Chronicle reporters were told by some supporters that they had been bused into San Francisco from the South Bay, the East Bay and Sacramento by the Chinese Consulate and Chinese American groups.

They were waving thousands of huge, red Chinese flags or holding up identical, professional-looking placards that read "Beijing, 2008, torch relay."

If they are such ardent patriots why are they in America and not in China, I was about to ask but then I realised, ah, they no doubt see themselves as the advance guard. Is there any need to spell out of what?

But why are the Chinese police being allowed to accompany the Olympic torch?

If the Olympic torch relay is really about the Olympic Games, the Chinese police have no business guarding it in foreign cities.

It's not like the Secret Service accompanying the US President. He is protected by Secret Service agents because he is the American leader.

Is the Olympic torch a Chinese possession or part of the Chinese leadership that it has to be protected by the Chinese police?

In fact, the Chinese police are violating national sovereignty by scuffling with protesters in London, Paris, San Francisco.

It is one thing to defend the national embassy, which is recognised as belonging to the nation it represents.

But the Chinese police have been confronting protesters on the streets of London, Paris, San Francisco. Since when did those streets become part of China?

Time reports:

The men in blue-and-white track suits are travelling the world to protect the Olympic torch, but, in the flame's tumultuous tour so far, they have become a symbol of Beijing's heavy-handedness.

The tracksuit-clad Sacred Torch Guard Team was drawn from China's paramilitary People's Armed Police, which is used for internal security. The group formed last August and trained by running six miles daily.

While their chief mission is to protect the flame, they've also cracked down on protesters.

Sebastian Coe, a two-time medalist and chairman of the London Games in 2012, called them "thugs" and said they tried to push him.

A torchbearer in Paris, environmental journalist Yolaine De La Bigne, told the Associated Press that the team snatched away the Tibetan flag headband she was wearing.

AFP reports from New Delhi: India bristles at Chinese security for Olympic flame.

Hillary speaks up on Tibet, Darfur

Hillary Clinton shows courage in calling on Bush to boycott the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics on August 8 to protest against China's human rights record. It can't be easy for an American presidential contender to take such a stand considering the damage China can do to the US economy. But women are taking the lead in denouncing Beijing. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has announced she will boycott the opening ceremony and the Democrat Nancy Pelosi has also called for similar action. Their outspoken criticism contrasts with the behaviour of Gordon Brown who has been bending over backwards to woo Chinese investors.

Hillary (photo Guardian) says:

The violent clashes in Tibet and the failure of the Chinese government to use its full leverage with Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur are opportunities for Presidential leadership. These events underscore why I believe the Bush administration has been wrong to downplay human rights in its policy towards China. At this time, and in light of recent events, I believe President Bush should not plan on attending the opening ceremonies in Beijing, absent major changes by the Chinese government.

I encourage the Chinese to take advantage of this moment as an opportunity to live up to universal human aspirations of respect for human rights and unity, ideals that the Olympic games have come to represent.

Americans will stand strong in support of freedom of religious and political expression and human rights. Americans will also stand strong and root for the success of American athletes who have worked hard and earned the right to compete in the Olympic Games of 2008.

The Olympics should not be politicised, it's said. But the Games have already been politicised.

Technorati Tags: hillary clinton,china,beijing,olympics

UBS bleeds, woe Singapore?

The Swiss banking giant UBS is bleeding red ink. Will it stain the balance sheets of the Singapore government? The $9.74 billion the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) decided to invest in UBS is just a molehill compared with the bank's mounting losses.

Now UBS says it has lost another $19 billion in US real estate and related business, bringing its losses to $37 billion in the past nine months, the biggest for any bank. Now it is seeking another $15 billion in a rights issue underwritten by a syndicate led by JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, BNP Paribas and Goldman Sachs. That's on the top of the $13 billion capital injection from GIC and a mystery Middle East investor only four months ago, reminds The Times.

So what's next for the other banks in the portfolios of the Singapore sovereign wealth funds? Citigroup lost $21 billion last year and Merrill Lynch $19.4 billion. GIC has a stake in UBS and Citigroup and Temasek Holdings in Merrill Lynch.

These three will be the worst hit in the ongoing banking crisis, warned the analyst Meredith Whitney last month. Her pessimistic report about the future of Citibank led to about  $369 billion being wiped off the US stock market on November 1 last year.

Obama and the other media darling

Barrack Obama is eloquent. Hillary Clinton is scrappy. John McCain can be refreshingly candid and ironic, says a New York Times article. As for those who say he is awfully old, well, look at his record: no one can question his courage and patriotism.

If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, it will be a straight fight between two media darlings, says Neal Gabler in the New York Times article, which suggests McCain is the most impish of the three candidates. While Obama is idolised for his idealism. McCain charms reporters with his seeming candour, self-deprecating humour, irony and cynicism. Gabler recalls:

In 1999, William Greider wrote in Rolling Stone that, “While McCain continues examining his flaws, the reporters on the bus are getting a bit edgy. Will somebody tell this guy to shut up before he self-destructs?”

Imagine, reporters protecting a candidate from himself!

Who blinked first?

Obama supporters, of course, want Hillary to drop dead so he can carry the fight to the old man. Hillary's hopeless struggle for the nomination is distracting Obama from concentrating on the real enemy, they say.

But why shouldn't she carry on the battle when she has as many supporters as Obama? The Democrats are evenly split, according to Rasmussen Reports, with 22 percent wanting Hillary to drop out, and an equal number opposed to Obama.

Obama claims he is more electable than Hillary. But he didn't seem so sure when he didn't want to face the voters again in Florida and Michigan. It was he who blinked, not Hillary.

By ducking the repoll, of course, he stays ahead in the delegate count. But if he is not so sure of winning the Democratic primaries, how can he be so sure of beating the Republicans?

How China is reshaping the world

Western leaders concerned about democracy and human rights in China are barking up the wrong tree. Not even the Chinese intelligentsia is keen on democracy, says a fascinating article in Prospects magazine. Apparently, there is a new right, which brought in economic liberalisation, and a new left, which is keen on social welfare, but democracy is not high on the agenda of either. Power has become the ideal instead. The culture vultures crave soft power, the jingoes hard power, and both are getting their wishes. Chinese influence is growing in Africa and the United Nations, says the article:

In 1995 the US won 50.6 per cent of the votes in the UN general assembly; by 2006, the figure had fallen to just 23.6 per cent. On human rights, the results are even more dramatic: China's win-rate has rocketed from 43 per cent to 82 per cent, while the US's has tumbled from 57 per cent to 22 per cent.

China is already reshaping the world, says the article:

Scores of countries are copying Beijing's state-driven development using public money and foreign investment to build capital-intensive industries. A rash of copycat special economic zones have been set up all over the world—the World Bank estimates that over 3,000 projects are taking place in 120 countries. Globalisation was supposed to mean the worldwide triumph of the market economy, but China is showing that state capitalism is one of its biggest beneficiaries.

Especially interesting are the author Mark Leonard's conversations with Chinese intellectuals.

One informal adviser to President Hu Jintao favours gradual democracy, limited initially to communist party members. Even that would be a big step forward. As Leonard points out:

If the Communist party were a country, its 70 million members would make it bigger than Britain.

Obama, Hillary, Johnson and King

Hillary Clinton offended Barack Obama and a great many others when she recalled President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. She said:

I would point to the fact that that Dr King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in people's lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished." (This is the full quote from The Horse's Mouth blog in Talking Points Memo.)

Obama said:

Senator Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill-advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson.

I wonder what he thinks of yesterday's New York Times article which says pretty much the same thing:

In the early 1960s, opinion polls found that a majority of Americans saw civil rights as the dominant issue facing the country. And President Lyndon B Johnson, in one of several memorable 1965 speeches on race, said, speaking before a joint session of Congress after the “Bloody Sunday” voting-rights march from Selma, Ala.: “Their cause must be our cause too. Because it is not just Negroes, but really it is all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome.”

Yet it was President Johnson, too, who foresaw the end of what Glenda Gilmore, a Yale historian and author of “Defying Dixie: The Radical Roots of Civil Rights, 1919-1950,” described last week as a 20-year “national conversation on race” in the 1950s and 1960s. After signing the Civil Rights Act in July 1964, the president is said to have observed that he had just handed over the South to the Republicans for at least a generation. The Republicans seized the opportunity to peel off Democratic states.

Johnson was right about the South. He might not have been the greatest president: he did incalculable damage with the war on Vietnam, but he did dream of a Great Society and signed the civil rights legislation at considerable expense to his own party. Anyone who says acknowledging his role belittles King or offends blacks may be politically correct but is ignoring history.

King mentioned once in Obama's speech on race

Obama did not speak about Johnson and there was only one reference to Martin Luther King when he spoke about race in Philadelphia on March 18. He said nothing about the civil rights movement though he mentioned how people of that generation grew up amid segregation. He mentioned King only when he said he had "the great honour of speaking on Dr King’s birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta".

Obama, I guess, has the temperament of a personal blogger who is most comfortable talking about himself.

But he was so eloquent. I was moved when I read the complete speech in the New York Times and saw the YouTube video again after reading Frank Rich's column on The Republican Resurrection. Rich and almost every other commentator has praised the speech to the skies, but no report, no comment, can compare with the experience of reading and watching Obama's speech personally. I especially loved this quote:

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

Truer words were never spoken.

What Singapore fund's Internet profile doesn't say

Temasek Holdings is not a sovereign wealth fund, said a Temasek spokesman as soon as Singapore and Abu Dhabi reached an agreement with the US on sovereign wealth funds. Temasek isn't mentioned in the agreement  reached after talks  attended by its bigger counterpart, the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC), and Singapore's Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam.

Both GIC and Temasek Holdings are wholly owned by the Singapore government -- though Temasek does not say so in its corporate profile on the Internet. Check the fund's website. Its corporate profile merely says:

Temasek Holdings is an Asia investment house headquartered in Singapore.

With a multinational staff of more than 300 people, we manage a portfolio of over S$160 billion, or more than US$100 billion, focused primarily in Asia.

I found the fund was owned by the Singapore government only when I downloaded Temasek Holdings' Our People, Our Team PDF document. It's mentioned on page 12 of the 27-page document under the heading, Institutionalising Governance, which says:

Temasek is an investment company that owns and manages its assets on a commercial basis.

We are an exempt private company incorporated on 25 June 1974 to hold and manage investments previously held by our shareholder, the Minister for Finance (Incorporated).

Temasek Holdings' CEO, Ho Ching, who is the wife of Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, and board members can be appointed and dismissed only with the approval of the President of Singapore, says the document. But it adds:

Neither the President nor the Singapore Government is involved in directing our investment, divestment or other business decisions.

Temasek does not manage the reserves of the Singapore government, the document adds.

The Singapore finance ministry website, on the contrary, says:

The Singapore Government gives the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) and Temasek Holdings (Temasek) the mandate of managing Government’s financial reserves so as to maximise its long-term value. GIC is an investment management company responsible for the global management of assets belonging to the Singapore Government. Temasek is an investment holding company which owns and manages a diversified portfolio of assets with the objective of delivering long-term returns to its shareholder, the Singapore Government. 

In fact, GIC and Temasek both have to report to Singapore's President SR Nathan and enjoy the same status.

What's a sovereign wealth fund?

However, the Temasek Holdings spokesman said:

Temasek Holdings is not a sovereign wealth fund. Temasek has to sell assets to raise cash for new investments and doesn't require the government to give approvals."

But whether or not it requires government approval has nothing to do whether it's a sovereign wealth fund, as explained in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia says:

A sovereign wealth fund (SWF) is a state-owned fund composed of financial assets such as stocks, bonds, property or other financial instruments.

Sovereign wealth funds are entities that manage state savings for the purposes of investment.

And that is the objective of Temasek Holdings --"delivering long-term returns to its shareholder, the Singapore Government", according to the Singapore finance ministry.

Temasek Holdings is ranked among the world's top 10 sovereign wealth funds both by Wikipedia and the Economist magazine.

Singapore biggest sovereign investor

A draft code for sovereign wealth funds may be ready for Singapore and other sovereign investors to consider when the International Monetary Fund holds its annual meeting in October, says the Wall Street Journal.

Singapore is willing to adopt such a code if Western countries commit to not blocking future acquisitions, said The Times.

Singapore was the biggest sovereign investor last year and the first two months of this year, according to market data provider Dealogic.

A Reuters report quoting Dealogic said:

Singapore... through Temasek Holdings and Government of Singapore Investment Corp (GIC), had invested about $42 billion between January 2007 and February 2008, accounting for 57 percent of the total sovereign fund investments globally in the period.

That was followed by United Arab Emirates' $10.7 billion and China's $8 billion.

But sovereign funds might be tightening the taps after seeing shares plummet in firms in which they have invested.

Singapore, for example, saw Citi shares drop 30 percent since it agreed to inject funds, along with Kuwait Investment Authority and other private investors on January 14. UBS  shares plunged some 50 percent after GIC agreed to buy a 9 percent stake in the Swiss bank on December 10.

A voluntary code for sovereign funds looks more likely now for two reasons:

• The International Monetary Fund’s executive board is expected to bless the staff’s effort to create a voluntary code of “best practices” to guide sovereign wealth funds, said the Wall Street Journal.
• And Abu Dhabi has pledged it won't use its money to further its political aims. The Abu Dhabi Investment Authority is the world's biggest sovereign fund, with an estimated $875 billion in assets.

The three-page letter sent to US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and other Western finance officials last week marks Abu Dhabi's first official response to Western pressure for greater openness about the sovereign funds and how they operate.

The Journal said:

The letter is a departure from past practices in the hereditary monarchy, where even basic government statistics aren't always disclosed. And it goes much further than many other sovereign funds. Norway's fund has been applauded for its transparency, but Asian and Middle East vehicles have mostly resisted calls to open up.

In a separate report on the proposed code, the Journal said:

Singapore media silent on Singapore funds

It's all right to read The Straits Times for Singapore ministers' speeches and local court reports. But for other news it's best to check other sources as well. A case in point: The Straits Times coverage of the Bear Stearns meltdown. One article in the Money pages speculates about how cash-rich Singapore financial institutions could benefit from the Wall Street crisis. It says:

Local institutions draw the bulk of their earnings from ultra-safe businesses such as home loans in Singapore, and their well-capitalised balance sheets and cash-rich deposits mean they could benefit from the new global financial order that will surely emerge from this upheaval.

Yes, little Singapore -- population four and a half million but one of the richest countries in the world with a per capita GDP of more than $35,000 -- has the money to capitalise on the crisis. Beleaguered Citigroup and UBS needed billions of dollars from the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation to stay in business when they were nearly wiped out by bad debts late last year. That is how the Singapore sovereign wealth fund became a key shareholder of the two banking giants. But does it have the appetite for more such acquisitions?

The Straits Times runs a Reuters report headlined,"Sovereign wealth funds steer clear of Wall Street", which notes they did not bid for Bear Stearns.

But Reuters goes further than that in a report headlined, "Not many suitors left standing for US banks", which specifically mentions Citigroup and the sovereign wealth funds' woes:

International banks have shown little interest in US acquisitions and sovereign wealth funds have already been burned.

The US government may be increasingly involved in rescuing banks, but foreign governments are likely to be more reluctant to put more money in US financial institutions, after having already lost big on their investments so far.

Since late November, Citigroup has raised more than $15 billion of capital from sovereign wealth funds. But the company's shares have dropped more than a third since the beginning of the year...

Citigroup is facing big writedowns...

Writedowns are painful for banks, whose business model is to borrow most of their capital.

Singapore's other sovereign wealth fund, Temasek Holdings, also has problems.

It has a stake in Merrill Lynch, one of the four remaining Wall Street investment banks after the collapse of Bear Stearns. Lehman Brothers was the one believed to be most at risk, but it posted better than expected first quarter results while doubts persist about Merrill Lynch. Bloomberg reports:

Merrill Lynch``is the riskiest'' of the largest remaining US investment banks, while Lehman Brothers Holdings has the strongest access to capital, according to Wachovia Corp analyst Douglas Sipkin.

Merill Lynch has $30.4 billion in subprime collateralised debt obligations and the ``worst'' liquidity ratio of 52 percent, Sipkin wrote. Lehman's liquidity ratio was the highest at 74 percent, he said.

Meredith Whitney, another major analyst, also expects Merrill Lynch, UBS and Citigroup to be worst hit by the financial crisis.

Temasek's problems don't end there. Bloomberg reports:

Merrill Lynch, UBS, Citigroup next, warns analyst

The Times of London reports:

Meredith Whitney, the Wall Street analyst who received death threats after writing a negative report about Citigroup, has predicted that financial stocks could plummet by as much as half in the wake of the Bear Stearns fire sale.

The analyst says Merrill Lynch, UBS and Citigroup will be the worst hit.

The Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GICC) has $6.88 billion in Citigroup and $9.75 billion in UBS while the other Singapore sovereign wealth fund, Temasek Holdings, has more than a $4 billion stake in Merrill Lynch.

Whitney is a major Wall Street analyst. Her pessimistic report about the future of Citibank led to about  $369 billion being wiped off the US stock market on November 1 last year.

The New York Times DealBook reports:

Matthew O’Conner of UBS drew a line between banks and brokerages on Monday, suggesting that banks, which are funded largely by government-insured customer deposits, could be relative “safe havens” in the current storm.

But Whitney saw big risks for a wide range of financial stocks. Here is the crux of her theory.

While financial firms are often valued as a multiple of their book value, Whitney argues that something called tangible book value is a better gauge.

Book value includes “goodwill,” an accounting concept that is used in acquisitions to make both sides of the ledger match up. Essentially, it fills the gap between a purchase price and the value of the assets acquired.

In recent years, many financial firms have experienced big increases in their book value, but their tangible book value has not risen nearly as much...

This disconnect could become more important if, as Whitney believes, many financial firms start writing off goodwill later this year.

Citi and the Bear

The losses suffered by Bear Stearns were nothing compared with the sea of red ink drowning Citigroup. So why can Citi be expected to pull through while the Bear went bust? Size and deep pockets.

Singapore, which has a stake in Citigroup, is playing it cool. The Monetary Authority of Singapore announced today Singapore banks and hedge funds have enough cash to weather the financial turmoil. The Singapore sovereign wealth fund, Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, recently decided to invest $6.88 billion for a 4 percent stake in Citigroup.

Citigroup, which has fallen 27 percent since reporting a record $9.8 billion loss for the fourth quarter last year, may have writedowns of $15 billion this quarter, reports Bloomberg today, quoting Merrill Lynch. That would add to the $22 billion that Citigroup already lost because of the US housing slump.

Bear Stearns' losses were negligible in comparison. It announced a net loss of $854 million for the fourth quarter of 2007 as it wrote off $1.9 billion tied to mortgage-backed securities and was forced to close two of its hedge funds, says The Times.

But there's no comparison between the two banks.

Bear Stearns had a market value of $4.1 billion last Friday, according to the New York Times.

Citigroup had $2.4 trillion in assets as of September 2007, according to Forbes Global 2007, says Wikipedia.

Citigroup has other wealthy backers besides Singapore. The bank has raised about $30 billion from Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia’s Prince Al Waleed.

But it would need a lot more money to be rescued, said Dubai's sovereign wealth fund manager early this month, sending Citi shares and financial markets into a tailspin. Citigroup is currently trading below book value, according to the New York Times.

Singapore is also shaking up Wall Street firms. Shares of Lehman Brothers Holdings plunged in premarket trading on Monday after a news report that Southeast Asia's largest bank instructed traders in an e-mail not to do business with the bank, reported the International Herald Tribune.

Singapore's DBS Group Holdings took back those instructions, but after the fall of Bear Stearns on Sunday, skittish investors sold off quickly and Lehman shares fell more than 27 percent, or $10.76, to $28.50, it added.

DBS is part of Singapore's other sovereign wealth fund, Temasek Holdings, which has a stake in the rival Wall Street investment bank, Merrill Lynch.

Billions can be wiped out overnight in the jittery market. Think of the Bear. Sold for only $2 a share for about $236 million -- less than a tenth of its value last week -- to JPMorgan Chase.

There could be worse to come, says The Times in a report headlined "Bear Stearns: the banking twister heading your way".

Spare us, please, a rerun of October 29, 1929. That's the day Wall Street crashed, starting the Great Depression.

PS: Both Citigroup and Merill Lynch posted losses, reports Wall Street Journal. Citigroup was down 6 percent, Merrill Lynch 5.4 percent.

Meanwhile, online in China...

While the violence in Tibet is getting international coverage, this is what I saw when I visited two Chinese English-language websites: not a word on Tibet. China Daily was displaying on the top half of the page stories headlined China outclicks  the US ("China has surpassed the US in terms of Internet users") and NY governor resigns, call-girl famed (sic). Xinhua had stories about the communist party, European Union and Africa.

China accuses the Dalai Lama of masterminding Tibet protests, reports Reuters quoting Xinhua. But I didn't see that story on either site. The Dalai Lama has denied the charge, reports the BBC.

CNN reports: China continues to impose reporting restrictions in Tibet and the neighbouring province of Xinjiang. CNN sought permission to enter Tibet on Friday morning Beijing time. So far, this permission has not been granted. CNN reporting on Tibet was being blacked out Friday in mainland China.

Tibet and China

So foolish and ... wrong. Violence shouldn't be encouraged. People shouldn't be encouraged to die as they surely will if the protests in Tibet continue. After all, they are protesting against authorities who crushed their own people at Tienanman Square. But isn't it strange that while China has become the envy of the world for its economic success, some people want no part of it?

People led by Buddhist monks in Lhasa are setting fire to shops and cars and destroying anything of Chinese influence -- and Chinese troops have responded with teargas and live ammunition, killing an unknown number of people, reports the BBC quoting eyewitnesses.

The protests coincide with 49th anniversary of the Tibetan National Uprising Day, reminds Tibet.com, the website of the Tibetan Government in Exile -- the Dalai Lama and his supporters in Dharamsala, India. The Dalai Lama has appealed to Beijing to stop using "brute force", reports the BBC. While offering refuge to Tibetans, India has done everything to prevent trouble, arresting more than a hundred Tibetans on a peaceful march back to Tibet.

But what is Tibetan National Uprising Day? March10.org, a website bearing the date of the failed uprising, pieces together the story from newspaper reports about what happened in March 1959. The Guardian has a concise Q & A on Tibet and China which recalls " a bloody rebellion against the Chinese in 1959 left thousands dead and the Dalai Lama exiled to Dharamsala in India".

Students for a Free Tibet is another website to check for news about Tibet.

Maybe the protesters are a minority in their own country, maybe they are backward-looking, but it shows Tibet is yet to be fully assimilated into China. Not even the highest railway line in the world and other engineering marvels connecting Tibet with China and the influx of Chinese into the Himalayan fastness have been able to bridge the gulf between Beijing and Lhasa.

It is a reminder that China, for all its economic liberalisation, is a communist state. The Han Chinese influx into Tibet with Beijing's official encouragement reminds one of the large-scale population movements across the former Soviet Union. The BBC reports Tibet has 2.62 million people, according to the 2000 Chinese census, but doesn't give the ethnic breakdown. Wikipedia, on the other hand, says the population is 2.74 million of whom 92.1 percent are Tibetans and only 6.1 percent Han Chinese. It makes one wonder why then are the Tibetans protesting.

It's best to get along with China, as the West has learnt. Earlier today, the Associated Press reported how some viruses come pre-installed in electronic gadgets made in China, but apparently the only solution is for buyers to protect themselves by running anti-virus programs; help can be expected from no other quarters.

Tibet.com carries the statement issued by the Dalai Lama on March 10, the 49th anniversary of the Tibetan National Uprising Day. Tibet.com reports:

Obama's remarkable mum

I support Hillary Clinton though every time I see or hear Barack Obama on a videoclip or television, I am deeply impressed. But if I were to vote for him, it would be for his mother, or what I read about her in the International Herald Tribune. What a remarkable woman. Obama seems far more conventional than his mother.

This is such a wonderful picture of them together. (Photo International Herald Tribune)

Of course, he couldn't have it easy being the child of such an idealistic woman. Living in different cultures, finding his own identity, there were issues he faced that might have never surfaced if he were born into a more conventional family. It's revealing he has not followed in his mother's footsteps, sparing his children the same experience.

I admire Obama, so I hope his supporters won't mind this. But I am surprised Hillary had to apologise for what her supporter Geraldine Ferraro said: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Isn't that true? Won't Obama make history if he becomes the first African American president? Won't he make history just by winning the Democratic nomination? Isn't part of his appeal his multiracial heritage?

There is no other leader in the news who can make the same claim. It is one of the things that makes him exceptional. It has galvanised the African Americans and attracted so many others that he is the frontrunner in the Democratic race. And when somebody points that out, apologies are called for? Strange.    

Even calling him "lucky" doesn't detract him from his powerful appeal for he is fortunate indeed to possess such charisma. It's a gift which can't be earned by hard work.

I just wish this skirmishing ended and Hillary and Obama became running mates for the November election.

The Economist's faulty Shakespeare

Malaysia's former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad is compared to King Lear by The Economist magazine. Mahathir finds fault with another heir, it says. So far so good. But then it gets the plotline hopelessly mixed. The conclusion it draws is completely out of whack with the Shakespearean tragedy.   

The Economist says:

Dr Mahathir seems to have taken the results of the election on March 8th personally. The BN (Barisan Nasional) won comfortably. But it lost its two-thirds majority in parliament—needed if it wants to change the constitution (which it does, on average, once every 15 months)—and was defeated in five of the concurrent elections for the 13 state governments (before the election it controlled all but one). For the first time since Malaysia became independent some 50 years ago, the UMNO faces the prospect of losing power.

Dr Mahathir has no doubt about whom to blame. He said Abdullah Badawi, the prime minister, should accept “100% responsibility” and resign.

It adds:

Dr Mahathir must admit that his record in picking successors is, at best, patchy. Mr Badawi’s predecessor as anointee was Anwar Ibrahim, whom Dr Mahathir turned against in 1998, during the regional financial meltdown.

Many Malaysians remain suspicious of Mr Anwar. His trajectory from youthful Islamic firebrand to loyal Mahathir deputy to liberal leader of the reformist opposition has been too seamless. But his suffering in jail, and Dr Mahtahir’s victimisation of him, has made many give him the benefit of the doubt. And at least he has moved with the times.

UMNO itself, however, and Dr Mahathir, seem stuck in the past. They have not realised that the modern, multiracial, dynamic society they have helped spawn is ready for a more competitive politics. One of the most encouraging aspects of this election is the way both government and opposition have reacted to the result: graciously and with restraint.

Dr Mahathir may have chosen far better than he knows.

Now that's something nobody's going to say about King Lear. Anyone who has seen or read the play will agree the old man couldn't have chosen anyone worse than his two older daughters, Goneril and Regan, as his heirs.

The fact that Lear rues dividing his kingdom between the treacherous vixens, disinheriting his youngest daughter, Cordelia, is of course in line with Mahathir's current state of mind.

Now he says he made the wrong choice, picking Abdullah Badawi as his successor instead of Najib Tun Razak, the current No 2. So if Mahathir is King Lear, Najib is Cordelia? Mind-boggling, isn't it? The Economist wisely doesn't cast anyone in the role of Cordelia. 

Eliot Spitzer's MySpace callgirl

MySpace, sex service with a website, smurfing -- the Eliot Spitzer scandal is a high-tech morality tale.

"Kristen" -- the callgirl a one-hour session with on the night of February 13 in Washington's Mayflower Hotel led to the New York governor's downfall -- is actually Ashley Alexandra Dupre who has her own MySpace page. "I am all about my music, and my music is all about me," she says on her MySpace page where she lists Whitney Houston, Madonna, Mary G Blige, Amy Winehouse and Celine Dion among her friends. The New York Times has an interview with her.

Though Spitzer announced his resignation yesterday, he hasn't been charged with any crime though prosecutors have not ruled that out yet. Dupre, a New Yorker, went to Washington for the date with the governor as wanted by him. That's "transporting across state lines", a federal crime.

Spitzer was recorded fixing the appointment with the girl's agent on the phone. But the Emperors Club VIP also had a website to attract clients. Pictures of the girls were posted without showing their faces and they were rated on a scale of one to seven diamonds, much like hotels are rated with Michelin stars. The charges ranged from $1,000 to more $5,500 an hour. Credit card payments were accepted.

FBI chargesheet

These details were revealed in the FBI chargesheet against two men and two women charged with "arranging connections between wealthy male clients and more than 50 prostitutes" in New York, Washington, Los Angeles, Miami, London and Paris among other places. The two men were also charged with conspiring to launder more than $1 million. The FBI chargesheet can be downloaded as a PDF file.

The man who shrank the Big Apple pie

Whatever New Yorkers may think of him, Eliot Spitzer (photo New York Times) deserves the gratitude of at least one city: London.

London overtook New York as the world's money capital in 2006 just as he was ending his eight-year run as New York attorney general to become the governor of the state.

He cracked down on Wall Street, and the money gushed into London. As The Economist reported in September 2007:

His zeal won over many consumers in New York, but it did not go down well in international capital markets.

It added:

Much of the financial world's grumbling in recent years was directed at Eliot Spitzer, the former attorney-general (and now governor) of New York, who cracked down so zealously on the private sector that his name became synonymous with heavy-handed regulation. But some financiers suggest that the national regulators in Washington, DC, have been just as tough on the sector.

Spitzer exposed price fixing in computer chips, stock market analysts misleading the public, mutual fund brokers allowing favoured customers to trade after the market had closed for the day, payola, graft in the insurance industry, and other rackets. And he was elected governor by a landslide with 69 percent of the vote.

But meanwhile business was slipping away. As The Sunday Times of London in December 2006 reported:

The damage to New York began with 9/11. The ferocious increase in airport security that followed turned every flight into JFK and Newark into a nightmare of queues and searches. Businessmen from the big emerging markets – India, China and Russia – found they were regarded with suspicion... the number of business travellers to the US fell by 10 percent from 2004-5...

And then came the real blow to New York. The Enron and WorldCom corporate scandals rocked Wall Street’s bull-market complacency and, in panic, everybody overreacted. A swarm of new enforcement measures descended on the ruins of the companies. In 2002, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, known as Sox. This hugely tightened the rules of corporate governance and put barriers in the way of companies wanting to go public in New York. Foreign companies planning a New York listing were aghast...

Malaysian PM: Post-mortem

Hoist by his own petard? Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi (photo  BBC) has courted disaster by calling early elections. But the pro-government New Straits Times is putting on a brave face. Its website carries this headline: Election 2008: Barisan Nasional (the ruling coalition) holds on to seven states. That is like saying a part of the Titanic is still above water.

The fact is the government suffered its biggest setback in nearly 40 years, losing five of the 13 states in elections yesterday. But Abdullah denied he was under pressure to quit after the government failed to win a two-thirds majority for the first time since 1969. In full denial, he did not see the election results as a vote of no confidence for the government. "I do not see it that way," he said. "I do not know who is being pressured. I am not resigning," reported the International Herald Tribune.

Quit, says Abdullah's former boss

He was kidding himself. He should resign, said former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad. "It's shocking... The Japanese would have committed hara-kiri. I'm sorry I made the wrong choice," said Mahathir, who was Malaysia's longest-serving prime minister (July 1981-October 2003), of his successor.

Indians unhappy

Indians, who make up eight percent of the 26 million population, showed their unhappiness by voting out the pro-government Malaysian Indian Congress leader, the Works Minister Samy Velu, and electing the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) leader M Manoharan, who is in jail for organising the November 25 protest rally by ethnic Indians alleging discrimination in jobs, education and housing.

Beleagured like Thaksin

Abdullah now finds himself in a hostile capital like the former Thai prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra. The opposition took control of almost all the seats in Kuala Lumpur, and the neighbouring industrial state of Selangor. Thaksin, however, had supporters elsewhere and is now making inroads again.

As for Abdullah,  "I think the PM will potentially have to resign," said Bridget Welsh, a Malaysia specialist at Johns Hopkins University in the United States, reported Reuters. "This is unprecedented. The only other time this happened was in 1969 and that's why everybody is very nervous now because of the uncertainty."

Deadly race riots broke out between ethnic Chinese and the Malays in 1969 when the government last failed to win a two-thirds majority.

To prevent trouble, police yesterday banned victory processions and threatened to use tough internal security laws against anyone spreading rumours. It was opposition victory processions that triggered the 1969 riots. But banning protest rallies, teargassing and arresting protesters like the police did during the November 25 peaceful protest by ethnic Indians, and rounding up people under tough internal security laws cannot win votes, as the government discovered yesterday.

Government infighting

Abdullah will nevertheless form the next government as his ruling coalition won a simple majority: 137 out of 219 seats with three seats still to be declared. Three ministers lost their seats including Samy Velu -- but not Defence Minister Najib Tun Abdul Razak, Abdullah's main rival, according to Arab News. Mahathir now says he made a mistake choosing Abdullah as his successor: Najib should have taken over instead, reports the Sydney Morning Herald.

Umno has a history of infighting and leaders have been deposed before: Ghafar Baba, who was Mahathir's deputy prime minister, was challenged by Anwar Ibrahim, who defeated him in Umno elections and became deputy prime minister in 1993. Then Anwar fell foul of Mahathir and was jailed for corruption in 1999. Mahathir then chose Abdullah as his deputy.

Why early elections

Yesterday's election results could not be more different from Abdullah's landslide victory in the 2004 election when the National Front won 90 percent of the seats in the federal parliament

The irony is, Abdullah need not have called an election until next year.

Observers said he called an early poll to prevent Anwar Ibrahim, now an opposition leader, from contesting the election. Anwar cannot stand for election yet though he was released from prison in 2004.

Four of world's 10 richest men are Indians

Four of the world's 10 richest men are Indians, according to the latest Forbes billionaire rankings.

Li Ka-shing is the richest Chinese, and the 11th richest man in the world.

Prince Alaweed bin Talal, one of the biggest Citigroup investors, is the richest Arab, ranking 19th overall.

It's interesting that India's Reliance Industries' founder, the late Dhirubhai Ambani's sons, Mukesh Ambani and Anil Ambani, are the fifth and sixth richest men in the world.

Lakshmi Mittal is the richest Indian in the world, taking fourth place, just behind Bill Gates, and KP Singh is the other Indian in the top 10, taking the eighth spot. He is now the world's richest real estate baron after listing his real estate development company, DLF City, last year, says Forbes.

Warren Buffet, the Sage of Omaha, is now the world's richest man: his fortune swelled by $10 billion to $62 billion last year as he made a series of shrewd punts, including a bet on Brazil's currency and profit on the oil company PetroChina, which has drawn flak for its links to Sudan's government, says the Guardian.

And the most extraordinary thing about him?

"Buffett's still living in the same house he bought when he was 28 for $31,000," said his biographer, Robert Miles. "He will often kid Bill (Gates), who built a $40 billion or $50 billon mansion, that they ought to bet their houses (when they play bridge)."

Here's the link to the Forbes special report on billlionaires.

For the first time the world has more than 1,000 billionaires, says Forbes. It found 1,125 billionaires worth a total of $4.4 trillion, up $900 billion from last year. Americans account for 42 percent of the world's billionaires. Russia, with 87 billionaires, is the new No 2 country behind the US, overtaking Germany, which has 59. There are 226 new billionaires: 77 from the US, 35 from Russia, 28 from China and 19 from India. Fifty billionaires are below 40, including Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page and India's Sameer Gehlaut. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg at 23 is the youngest billionaire, worth $1.5 billion. Brin, with $18.7 billion, and Page, with $18.6 billion, are the 32nd and 33rd richest men in the world. Michael Dell, with $16.4 billion, Paul Allen, with  $16 billion, and Steve Ballmer, with  $15 billion, are No 40, 41 and 43. Allen ties at 41 with investor Kirk Kerkorian, so there's no 42. Gates' closest high-tech rival is Oracle's Lawrence Ellison, at No 14 with $25 billion. Steve Jobs, worth $5.4 billion, ranks 189th.

The world's 25 richest people are:

• 1 Warren Buffett (Investments) $62.0 billion
• 2 Carlos Slim Helu (Telecoms) $60.0 billion
• 3 Bill Gates (Software) $58.0 billion
• 4 Lakshmi Mittal (Steel) $45.0 billion
• 5 Mukesh Ambani (Petrochemicals) $43.0 billion
• 6 Anil Ambani (Diverse sources) $42.0 billion
• 7 Ingvar Kamprad (Ikea stores) $31.0 billion
• 8 KP Singh (Property) $30.0 billion
• 9 Oleg Deripaska (Aluminium) $28.0 billion
• 10 Karl Albrecht (Aldi stores) $27.0 billion
• 11 Li Ka-shing (Diverse sources) $26.5 billion
• 12 Sheldon Adelson (Casinos/hotels) $26.0 billion
• 13 Bernard Arnault (Luxury goods) $25.5 billion
• 14 Lawrence Ellison (Software) $25.0 billion
• 15 Roman Abramovich (Oil) $23.5 billion
• 16 Theo Albrecht (Aldi stores) $23.0 billion
• 17 Liliane Bettencourt (L'Oréal) $22.9 billion
• 18 Alexei Mordashov (Manufacturing) $21.2 billion
• 19 Alaweed bin Talal (Investments) $21.0 billion
• 20 Mikhail Fridman (Oil/banking) $20.8 billion
• 21 Vladimir Lisin (Steel) $20.3 billion
• 22 Amancio Ortega (Zara stores) $20.2 billion
• 23 RTW Kwok (Property) $19.9 billion
• 24 Mikhail Prokhorov (Nickel) $19.5 billion
• 25 Vladimir Potanin (Nickel) $19.3 billion

Walmart's Christy Walton, Jim Walton, S Robson Walton and Alice Walton worth between $19 billion and $19.2 billion share the 26th to 29th spots.

India's Shashi and Ravi Ruia worth $15 billion share 43rd spot, above financier Carl Icahn, worth $14 billion, at No 46. India's software giant Wipro Industries founder Azim Premji, worth $12.7 billion, ranks 60th above New York mayor and media baron Michael Bloomberg who, with $11.5 billion, ranks 65th. George Soros with $9 billion shares the 97th spot with Malaysia's Robert Kuok. Ahead of them are Silvio Berlusconi ($9.4 billion, No 90), India's Gautam Adani ($9.3 billion, No 91), Ramesh Chandra, also from India ($9.6 billion, No 86),  and fellow Indians Kumar Birla ($10.2 billion, No 76)  and Sunil Mittal ($11.8 billion, No 64).

Hillary ready to run with Obama!

Hillary has hinted that she might run for president with Obama as her running mate. They would make a dream team, as I wrote before reading the report in the Guardian.

The Guardian reported:

Asked on CBS' The Early Show whether she and Obama should be on the same ticket, Clinton said: "That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me."

CBS News reported Hillary was responding to the Early Show co-anchor Harry Smith who said:

"We talked to a lot of people in Ohio who said there really isn't that significant a difference between you two, and they'd like to see you both on the ticket."

Now the ball's in Obama's court.

The Democratic leaders have made it clear they don't want the contest to drag on and divide the party when it should be united against the Republicans. Now here's a way out. Obama has nothing to lose by sitting down with Hillary. He has the upper hand as the frontrunner.

Hurrah for Hillary! Run together, Obama!

Clinton (photo CNN) wins in Texas too! This was the news I was waiting for. The suspense was really killing me after she wrapped up Ohio and Rhode Island. Hurrah for Hillary! No offence to Barack Obama. He is inspiring too. But, as Jimi Hendrix sang, "Are You Experienced"? Hurrah for Hillary! Now, let's sing My Generation!

Jokes aside, she was outspent, criticised by the media, urged by party leaders in not so many words to quit the race, and yet look where she is now. Full credit to her and her volunteers who, despite being outnumbered by the opposition, conquered three states, all in a day.

The media used to talk of the Clinton machine. Isn't it time they talked of the Obama machine as well? But, no, that's called a movement while the Clinton supporters are nothing more than a machine.

Hillary and Obama

Hillary demonstrated today when it comes to the crunch, she has got what it takes to bounce back and win, even when the odds are against her. And that's what a commander in chief needs, this strength and resilience, as she has been saying all along.

Obama has shown vision, inspiring people and starting a grassroots -- okay, let's give it to him -- "movement" that transcended race and class. But the movement has morphed into a machine bigger and richer than his rival's.

And the idealism too is showing a bit of wear and tear. The controversy over what his chief economic adviser said or did not say about his attitude towards NAFTA at a meeting with Canadian consular officials in Chicago would have been unimaginable a few days ago. And Obama himself has been seen hemming and hawing about whether he will accept public financing for his campaign,as he pledged to do.

Obama is no doubt an idealist and a visionary, but he is also a politician. That's why we hear him talking about the political arithmetic that, when it comes to delegates for the convention, he has the numbers on his side.

Hillary, of course, is seen as a politician. People and commentators are less likely to talk about her vision and idealism even though she has gone out on a limb before fighting for healthcare reform. She wouldn't have done that if she didn't feel deeply about it.

But, never mind what critics say, let's agree both Hillary and Obama want to be president. The question is, who remains undaunted by adversity and emerges with head held high?

Those are the qualities a US president needs in a changing world seething with challenges. Of course, he or she will have to be an idealist and a visionary and a conciliator as well.

Run together!

The Democrats have two remarkable candidates. Instead of urging one of them to drop out of the race so the Democrats can close their ranks against the Republicans, why don't the party leaders persuade Hillary and Obama to run on the same ticket? They would be a dream team.

Citigroup: Money not enough?

Is Citigroup still hard up after the $30 billion it raised from investors including Singapore, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, and Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal since November? Citigroup Inc shares fell to a nine-year low yesterday after a Dubai fund manager said the bank needs more capital and analysts predicted a first quarter loss.

What does the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) think? After all, the sovereign wealth fund, which manages Singapore's foreign reserves, decided to invest $6.88 billion for a 4 percent stake in Citigroup, the biggest US bank.

Bloomberg reported:

The shares fell 99 cents, or 4.3 percent, to $22.10 in New York trading as of 4 pm yesterday, the lowest price since 1998. They have tumbled 25 percent this year, the second-worst performance among the 30 members of the Dow Jones Industrial Average after Intel Corp. New York-based Citigroup was the worst performer last year, when it fell 47 percent.

Citigroup may have $15 billion of writedowns this quarter tied to subprime mortgages and so-called collateralized debt obligations, leaving the bank with a net loss of $1.66 a share, Merrill Lynch & Co. analyst Guy Moszkowski said in a note. Moszkowski, ranked the No 1 bank analyst by Institutional Investor magazine, was followed by a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. analyst who said the bank would lose $1 per share.

Bank spokesman Michael Hanretta declined to comment on the analysts' reports...

Citigroup raised $7.5 billion in November from Dubai's neighboring emirate, Abu Dhabi, after record mortgage losses wiped out almost half the company's market value and led to the departure of Chief Executive Officer Charles Prince. The company said in January it was getting another $14.5 billion from investors, including the governments of Singapore and Kuwait.

``It will take a lot more than that to rescue Citi and other financial institutions,'' Sameer al-Ansari, the chief executive officer of Dubai International Capital, said at an investment conference in the Middle Eastern emirate. The fund is one of several controlled by Dubai ruler Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al- Maktoum.

The Associated Press adds:

Hillary and Obama impress again

I support Hillary Clinton, but every time I see Barack Obama, I feel he too would make a great president. Anyone who didn't watch their debate in Cleveland today should visit the MSNBC  website and see it now. You will see them answering each question clearly, cogently,  without fumbling even once, which is remarkable, considering they had to face the cameras for more than 80 minutes. Save the transcript. Paraphrases cannot do justice to two such highly articulate people.

Who says Hillary is selfish, opportunistic? I saw a fighter who passionately cares for the people.

She was strongest when she spoke for universal health care. Mocking Obama's plan which would require parents to buy insurance for their children but not for themselves, she said that "it would be as though Franklin Roosevelt said let's make Social Security voluntary ... or if President Johnson said let's make Medicare voluntary."

She rightly pointed out Obama was not a US senator when he opposed the Iraq war in 2002. As she said:

Many people gave speeches against the war then, and the fair comparison is he didn't have responsibility, he didn't have to vote; by 2004 he was saying that he basically agreed with the way George Bush was conducting the war. And when he came to the Senate, he and I have voted exactly the same. We have voted for the money to fund the war until relatively recently. So the fair comparison was when we both had responsibility, when it wasn't just a speech but it was actually action, where is the difference?

But while Hillary was feisty, Obama was calm and magisterial. He didn't lose a single argument, nor did Hillary.

To his credit, Obama even had good words to say of Hillary and the Clinton administration. He said she would be a "worthy nominee" and praised Clinton's multilateral foreign policy. Too bad, the video on the website does not show he patted Hillary on the back at the end of the live telecast. That's how gracious he was. 

The only loser was Tim Russert! The NBC News Washington bureau chief made a fool of himself when he asked first Obama and then Hillary if they would pull out of Iraq if the Iraqi government wanted them to do so -- and re-invade Iraq if al Qaeda "resurges" (his words, not mine).

Hillary put him down: "You know, Tim, you ask a lot of hypotheticals."

She was right. He earlier asked them if they would opt out of Nafta in six months. As a veteran journalist, he should have known that was a silly question. Both said they would have to review it before making any decision.

What the debate showed was two great candidates -- and the inadequacy of the media. Russert was childish with his stupid questions to paint Hillary and Obama into a corner. But Hillary baiters like Maureen Dowd hardly show any better judgment.

Technorati Tags: hillary clinton,obama

Hillary and Obama at their best

The Hillary-Obama debate made riveting television yesterday. Words can't describe the atmosphere in the University of Texas, Austin, auditorium as the two contenders outlined their policies with passionate conviction to an entranced audience. We saw the power of words and the exultation of the listeners. If you missed the live telecast like me, you can still watch it here. I watched the entire 88-minute videocast without getting up from my computer, it was so good. You can see the transcript at the same time as you watch the video.

Anyone who says Hillary is uninspiring as a speaker should have seen her speak on health care. This woman cares. But Obama was something else. I have watched him on television deliver soul-stirring speeches like the one in Chicago on Super Tuesday when he said, "We are the change we have been waiting for." But he can mesmerise even when he is answering questions, like he did at the debate yesterday. Young, handsome, making his poi