O:9:"magpierss":20:{s:6:"parser";i:0;s:12:"current_item";a:0:{}s:5:"items";a:15:{i:0;a:6:{s:5:"title";s:48:"Someone keep Fleet Street away from Bill Clinton";s:4:"link";s:49:"http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003842.html";s:11:"description";s:1260:"So by now everyone knows that Bill Clinton thinks the American press corps is in the bag for Barack Obama. Indeed, I suspect that in their heart of hearts, more pundits and reporters like Obama than Clinton (though, as Chris Matthews pointed out a few weeks ago, what they really like is a never-ending horse race). Still, despite the possible bias on these shores, I can't imagine any major American newspaper having the following lede for their story: Seventeen months after she sat regally in her New York living room and calmly declared: “I’m in and I’m in to win,” Hillary Clinton stands on a stage in a stifling hot shed in South Dakota, coughing and spluttering, as her daughter, Chelsea, grabs the microphone from her hand to take over the show. “A long campaign,” the former First Lady chokes out between sips of water. Her husband, red-faced and exhausted – and having just apologised for another angry outburst in front of reporters – looks on wistfully at the final rally of his wife’s presidential bid, an endeavour that has been transformed from an inevitable juggernaut into a costly train wreck. So,for those of you interested in Bill Clinton's continued good health, I'd recommend not showing him any of the Fleet Street covers tomorrow AM....";s:4:"guid";s:39:"3842@http://www.danieldrezner.com/blog/";s:2:"dc";a:2:{s:7:"subject";s:8:"politics";s:4:"date";s:25:"2008-06-03T23:29:39-05:00";}s:7:"summary";s:1260:"So by now everyone knows that Bill Clinton thinks the American press corps is in the bag for Barack Obama. Indeed, I suspect that in their heart of hearts, more pundits and reporters like Obama than Clinton (though, as Chris Matthews pointed out a few weeks ago, what they really like is a never-ending horse race). Still, despite the possible bias on these shores, I can't imagine any major American newspaper having the following lede for their story: Seventeen months after she sat regally in her New York living room and calmly declared: “I’m in and I’m in to win,” Hillary Clinton stands on a stage in a stifling hot shed in South Dakota, coughing and spluttering, as her daughter, Chelsea, grabs the microphone from her hand to take over the show. “A long campaign,” the former First Lady chokes out between sips of water. Her husband, red-faced and exhausted – and having just apologised for another angry outburst in front of reporters – looks on wistfully at the final rally of his wife’s presidential bid, an endeavour that has been transformed from an inevitable juggernaut into a costly train wreck. So,for those of you interested in Bill Clinton's continued good health, I'd recommend not showing him any of the Fleet Street covers tomorrow AM....";}i:1;a:6:{s:5:"title";s:39:"It rivals Buckley vs. Vidal, I tell you";s:4:"link";s:49:"http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003841.html";s:11:"description";s:305:"My latest bloggingheads diavlog is up. This one is with The American Prospect's Ezra Klein. Topic include Todd Purdum's Vanity Fair essay on Bill Clinton, why Ezra hates political science, and the state of public intellectuals in America. Go check it out (warning: the sound quality is a bit erratic)!!...";s:4:"guid";s:39:"3841@http://www.danieldrezner.com/blog/";s:2:"dc";a:2:{s:7:"subject";s:8:"personal";s:4:"date";s:25:"2008-06-03T08:49:15-05:00";}s:7:"summary";s:305:"My latest bloggingheads diavlog is up. This one is with The American Prospect's Ezra Klein. Topic include Todd Purdum's Vanity Fair essay on Bill Clinton, why Ezra hates political science, and the state of public intellectuals in America. Go check it out (warning: the sound quality is a bit erratic)!!...";}i:2;a:6:{s:5:"title";s:31:"So.... are the Clintons morons?";s:4:"link";s:49:"http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003840.html";s:11:"description";s:2337:"James Fallows writes the following about Hillary Clinton's mindset in running against Barack Obama: The Clinton team doesn't worry about hurting Obama's prospects of winning in the fall, because they assess those prospects at zero. Always have. Obama might not win if he leads a bitterly divided party, but (in this view) he was never going to win. Not a chance. He would be smashed like an armadillo in the road by the Republican campaign machine, and he would be just about as ready as the armadillo for what was coming.Others have made similar assessments of the Clinton mindset. Here's my question: how objectively stupid does someone have to be to come to this conclusion? Forgetting about the candidates for a second, the current political and economic environment suggests a clear Democrat victory this November. The economy is... let's call it uncertain. Inflation is rising. Things seem to be improving in Iraq, but the U.S. still has a large number of troops in theater five years after the start of the war, and it's still pretty damn unpopular. Standard prediction models suggest this -- as does the (un)popularity of the incumbent President and the responses to the question about the direction of the country. Now, if Barack Obama were to scream "F*** America!" during his acceptance speech, those figures wouldn't matter too much. But I suspect even the Clintons don't think he's that stupid. Negative attacks can drag a candidate down, but there are limits on their effectiveness. The preliminary evidence that some right-leaning media figures are relatively sympathetic to Obama. Why, therefore, would the Clintons believe that Obama has no chance of victory? I suspect this goes back to their experiences in the nineties, when they viewed themselves as the only ones who could vanquish the GOP in political battle. They've seen every other national Democrat in the past twenty years -- Michael Dukakis, Tom Foley, Al Gore, Tom Daschle, Richard Gephardt, John Kerry -- felled by the GOP, and I suspect they think of themselves as endowed with special Republican-smiting powers. Still, if they are thinking as Fallows and others describe, then they are even more narcissistic than I (or Todd Purdum) had previously believed. Which is saying something. UPDATE: Rob Farley provides a kinda sorta defense of the Clintons....";s:4:"guid";s:39:"3840@http://www.danieldrezner.com/blog/";s:2:"dc";a:2:{s:7:"subject";s:8:"politics";s:4:"date";s:25:"2008-06-02T16:51:33-05:00";}s:7:"summary";s:2337:"James Fallows writes the following about Hillary Clinton's mindset in running against Barack Obama: The Clinton team doesn't worry about hurting Obama's prospects of winning in the fall, because they assess those prospects at zero. Always have. Obama might not win if he leads a bitterly divided party, but (in this view) he was never going to win. Not a chance. He would be smashed like an armadillo in the road by the Republican campaign machine, and he would be just about as ready as the armadillo for what was coming.Others have made similar assessments of the Clinton mindset. Here's my question: how objectively stupid does someone have to be to come to this conclusion? Forgetting about the candidates for a second, the current political and economic environment suggests a clear Democrat victory this November. The economy is... let's call it uncertain. Inflation is rising. Things seem to be improving in Iraq, but the U.S. still has a large number of troops in theater five years after the start of the war, and it's still pretty damn unpopular. Standard prediction models suggest this -- as does the (un)popularity of the incumbent President and the responses to the question about the direction of the country. Now, if Barack Obama were to scream "F*** America!" during his acceptance speech, those figures wouldn't matter too much. But I suspect even the Clintons don't think he's that stupid. Negative attacks can drag a candidate down, but there are limits on their effectiveness. The preliminary evidence that some right-leaning media figures are relatively sympathetic to Obama. Why, therefore, would the Clintons believe that Obama has no chance of victory? I suspect this goes back to their experiences in the nineties, when they viewed themselves as the only ones who could vanquish the GOP in political battle. They've seen every other national Democrat in the past twenty years -- Michael Dukakis, Tom Foley, Al Gore, Tom Daschle, Richard Gephardt, John Kerry -- felled by the GOP, and I suspect they think of themselves as endowed with special Republican-smiting powers. Still, if they are thinking as Fallows and others describe, then they are even more narcissistic than I (or Todd Purdum) had previously believed. Which is saying something. UPDATE: Rob Farley provides a kinda sorta defense of the Clintons....";}i:3;a:6:{s:5:"title";s:77:"The New York Times didn't ask me, but then again, that's why I have this blog";s:4:"link";s:49:"http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003839.html";s:11:"description";s:2110:"The New York Times Book Review asked a bunch of writers which books they would recommend to the presidential candidates. Most of the submissions said more about the writer's politics than anything else, though I liked Gore Vidal's response best: I can only answer in the negative: I want them not to read The New York Times, while subscribing to The Financial Times.Well, I'd like the candidates to read this blog during their oodles of spare time, so here are five books worth perusing: 1) David Stockman, The Triumph of Politics. This is the classic parable of a bright young man who went to Washington brimming with ideas -- only to run into the brick wall of politics. 2) James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds. The President of the United States has a bias towards centralization. This book is a very useful guide to understanding the large category of issues and phenomenon when centralization and/or hierarchy is not the best course of action (and the small category when such an approach is vital). 3) Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals. What comes through this book is how Lincoln was able to lead -- starting from a position of initial weakness -- so effectively. Two things stood out for me -- his complete lack of pettiness or vanity, and his keen recognition of when doing the political thing was actually the right thing to do. 4) Martin Wolf, Why Globalization Works/Dani Rodrik, One Economics, Many Recipes. Obama should read Wolf, and McCain should read Rodrik. 5) Harry Frankfurt, On Bullshit. I can't see how a politician could navigate the Beltway without grasping this concept at its deepest level. And for Hillary Clinton, I also have a book recommendation -- and not Macbeth, which popped up more than once on the NYTBR's list. No, Senator Clinton should read Jeff Shesol's Mutual Contempt: Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud that Defined a Decade. A story about two ambitious politicians with similar policy objectives and radcally different styles. Plus, t would allow Clinton to refresh her memory about those historical references to the sixties that she keeps making....";s:4:"guid";s:39:"3839@http://www.danieldrezner.com/blog/";s:2:"dc";a:2:{s:7:"subject";s:8:"politics";s:4:"date";s:25:"2008-06-01T09:54:46-05:00";}s:7:"summary";s:2110:"The New York Times Book Review asked a bunch of writers which books they would recommend to the presidential candidates. Most of the submissions said more about the writer's politics than anything else, though I liked Gore Vidal's response best: I can only answer in the negative: I want them not to read The New York Times, while subscribing to The Financial Times.Well, I'd like the candidates to read this blog during their oodles of spare time, so here are five books worth perusing: 1) David Stockman, The Triumph of Politics. This is the classic parable of a bright young man who went to Washington brimming with ideas -- only to run into the brick wall of politics. 2) James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds. The President of the United States has a bias towards centralization. This book is a very useful guide to understanding the large category of issues and phenomenon when centralization and/or hierarchy is not the best course of action (and the small category when such an approach is vital). 3) Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals. What comes through this book is how Lincoln was able to lead -- starting from a position of initial weakness -- so effectively. Two things stood out for me -- his complete lack of pettiness or vanity, and his keen recognition of when doing the political thing was actually the right thing to do. 4) Martin Wolf, Why Globalization Works/Dani Rodrik, One Economics, Many Recipes. Obama should read Wolf, and McCain should read Rodrik. 5) Harry Frankfurt, On Bullshit. I can't see how a politician could navigate the Beltway without grasping this concept at its deepest level. And for Hillary Clinton, I also have a book recommendation -- and not Macbeth, which popped up more than once on the NYTBR's list. No, Senator Clinton should read Jeff Shesol's Mutual Contempt: Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud that Defined a Decade. A story about two ambitious politicians with similar policy objectives and radcally different styles. Plus, t would allow Clinton to refresh her memory about those historical references to the sixties that she keeps making....";}i:4;a:6:{s:5:"title";s:30:"Monica Crowley's jet black pot";s:4:"link";s:49:"http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003838.html";s:11:"description";s:2754:"On her blog, Monica Crowley disapproves of Scott McClellan's new tell-all book: [F]or someone who was once the president's confidante, someone he knew and trusted, someone who gave him the opportunity of a lifetime, to write a tell-all while that history is still being made, is not cool. There will be plenty of memoirs coming out of the Bush administration. Most will be cover-your-tushy affairs, as memoirs often are. Some will paint a glossy picture. Some will be critical. But their timing is crucial. McClellan could have published this book in 8 months, when Bush was on his way out the door. But then, he wouldn't have sold as many books. Publishing now may make him a bit wealthier, but it's simply not cool to do to your former boss and your president. Not cool at all.Crowley, of course, made her name by plagiarizing Paul Johnson writing two books about her experiences as a foreign policy aide for ex-president Richard Nixon. Here's an excerpt from Michiko Kakutani's New York Times review of Crowley's first book: All this makes for some fascinating, if gossipy, reading. It also makes the reader question Ms. Crowley's assertion that ''through our conversations, Nixon was insuring that his message and his vision would live on after he was gone.'' Ms. Crowley writes that her account (which tends to read like a tape-recorded transcript) was based on ''a daily diary beginning in 1989, of which Nixon was unaware.'' ''The quotes herein are the words of former President Nixon verbatim,'' she goes on. ''His professional and personal disclosures were made in confidence but with the implicit understanding that they would be eventually recounted.'' Would Mr. Nixon have wanted his petty, self-serving remarks about other politicians laid out in print? Would he have wanted his overheard phone conversations preserved for posterity? Would he have wanted his gloating interest in Mr. Clinton's problems exposed? It's hard to imagine that anyone would, least of all Mr. Nixon, with his compulsive desire to rehabilitate his reputation. As near as I can figure, Crowley thinks it's OK to publish tell-alls once the person you have served has left the scene, or if you say only laudatory things about this person (since can't find Crowley berating Ari Fleischer for publishing his memoirs before Bush left office). I'm just going to file thus under the "distinction without a difference" category and move on. UPDATE: Can't resist one historical correction to Crowley's post. She writes, "George Stephanopoulos was the first high-ranking White House official to publish a tell-all while his president was still in office." Actually, no. David Stockman's The Triumph of Politics beat Stephanopolous' All Too Human to it by more than a decade....";s:4:"guid";s:39:"3838@http://www.danieldrezner.com/blog/";s:2:"dc";a:2:{s:7:"subject";s:9:"Book club";s:4:"date";s:25:"2008-05-29T16:54:29-05:00";}s:7:"summary";s:2754:"On her blog, Monica Crowley disapproves of Scott McClellan's new tell-all book: [F]or someone who was once the president's confidante, someone he knew and trusted, someone who gave him the opportunity of a lifetime, to write a tell-all while that history is still being made, is not cool. There will be plenty of memoirs coming out of the Bush administration. Most will be cover-your-tushy affairs, as memoirs often are. Some will paint a glossy picture. Some will be critical. But their timing is crucial. McClellan could have published this book in 8 months, when Bush was on his way out the door. But then, he wouldn't have sold as many books. Publishing now may make him a bit wealthier, but it's simply not cool to do to your former boss and your president. Not cool at all.Crowley, of course, made her name by plagiarizing Paul Johnson writing two books about her experiences as a foreign policy aide for ex-president Richard Nixon. Here's an excerpt from Michiko Kakutani's New York Times review of Crowley's first book: All this makes for some fascinating, if gossipy, reading. It also makes the reader question Ms. Crowley's assertion that ''through our conversations, Nixon was insuring that his message and his vision would live on after he was gone.'' Ms. Crowley writes that her account (which tends to read like a tape-recorded transcript) was based on ''a daily diary beginning in 1989, of which Nixon was unaware.'' ''The quotes herein are the words of former President Nixon verbatim,'' she goes on. ''His professional and personal disclosures were made in confidence but with the implicit understanding that they would be eventually recounted.'' Would Mr. Nixon have wanted his petty, self-serving remarks about other politicians laid out in print? Would he have wanted his overheard phone conversations preserved for posterity? Would he have wanted his gloating interest in Mr. Clinton's problems exposed? It's hard to imagine that anyone would, least of all Mr. Nixon, with his compulsive desire to rehabilitate his reputation. As near as I can figure, Crowley thinks it's OK to publish tell-alls once the person you have served has left the scene, or if you say only laudatory things about this person (since can't find Crowley berating Ari Fleischer for publishing his memoirs before Bush left office). I'm just going to file thus under the "distinction without a difference" category and move on. UPDATE: Can't resist one historical correction to Crowley's post. She writes, "George Stephanopoulos was the first high-ranking White House official to publish a tell-all while his president was still in office." Actually, no. David Stockman's The Triumph of Politics beat Stephanopolous' All Too Human to it by more than a decade....";}i:5;a:6:{s:5:"title";s:18:"Al Qaeda is losing";s:4:"link";s:49:"http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003837.html";s:11:"description";s:296:"Last week, we sawquantitative evidence that terrorist tactics in general -- and Al Qaeda in partcular -- appears to be on the wane. This week, there's some qualitative evidence that Al Qaeda is losing, and losing badly, among its core constituency -- Muslims sympathetic to the cause of jihad....";s:4:"guid";s:39:"3837@http://www.danieldrezner.com/blog/";s:2:"dc";a:2:{s:7:"subject";s:23:"international relations";s:4:"date";s:25:"2008-05-28T13:07:31-05:00";}s:7:"summary";s:296:"Last week, we sawquantitative evidence that terrorist tactics in general -- and Al Qaeda in partcular -- appears to be on the wane. This week, there's some qualitative evidence that Al Qaeda is losing, and losing badly, among its core constituency -- Muslims sympathetic to the cause of jihad....";}i:6;a:6:{s:5:"title";s:21:"Speaking of karma....";s:4:"link";s:49:"http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003836.html";s:11:"description";s:1252:"Appropos of my last post, it's worth remembering that five years ago western investors were fretting about the implosion of China's financial sector. In the here and now, you have this sort of gleeful comeuppance as reported by the FT's Jamil Anderlini: Western governments must strengthen their oversight of financial markets and improve cross-border regulatory co-operation if they are to avoid future global financial crises, a senior Chinese banking regulator told the Financial Times on Tuesday. “I feel the western consensus on the relation between the market and the government should be reviewed,” said Liao Min, director-general and acting head of the general office of the China Banking Regulatory Commission.... The majority of China’s financial sector is still owned by the state, and the government retains tight control over many aspects of the industry, including senior personnel decisions at the country’s largest banks, insurers and brokerages. Thanks to China’s lack of integration with global financial markets as well as the cautious regulatory approach of the CBRC, Chinese banks have emerged relatively unscathed from the global credit crisis, which so far has caused nearly $380bn of losses at western financial institutions....";s:4:"guid";s:39:"3836@http://www.danieldrezner.com/blog/";s:2:"dc";a:2:{s:7:"subject";s:9:"economics";s:4:"date";s:25:"2008-05-28T09:29:11-05:00";}s:7:"summary";s:1252:"Appropos of my last post, it's worth remembering that five years ago western investors were fretting about the implosion of China's financial sector. In the here and now, you have this sort of gleeful comeuppance as reported by the FT's Jamil Anderlini: Western governments must strengthen their oversight of financial markets and improve cross-border regulatory co-operation if they are to avoid future global financial crises, a senior Chinese banking regulator told the Financial Times on Tuesday. “I feel the western consensus on the relation between the market and the government should be reviewed,” said Liao Min, director-general and acting head of the general office of the China Banking Regulatory Commission.... The majority of China’s financial sector is still owned by the state, and the government retains tight control over many aspects of the industry, including senior personnel decisions at the country’s largest banks, insurers and brokerages. Thanks to China’s lack of integration with global financial markets as well as the cautious regulatory approach of the CBRC, Chinese banks have emerged relatively unscathed from the global credit crisis, which so far has caused nearly $380bn of losses at western financial institutions....";}i:7;a:6:{s:5:"title";s:32:"The blog post that writes itself";s:4:"link";s:49:"http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003835.html";s:11:"description";s:1744:"From the Hollywood Reporter's Karen Chu: Sharon Stone, who last year was a guest of the Shanghai International Film Festival, now faces a boycott of her films in China after she suggested the devastating May 12 earthquake there could have been the result of bad "karma." Stone's remarks, made Thursday at the Festival de Cannes, pondered a link between the earthquake -- which to date has taken the lives of more than 65,000 -- and China's treatment of ethnic Tibetans and their exiled spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, whom she called "a good friend." "I'm not happy about the way the Chinese are treating the Tibetans because I don't think anyone should be unkind to anyone else," Stone said in a brief red-carpet interview with Cable Entertainment News of Hong Kong. "And then this earthquake and all this stuff happened, and then I thought, is that karma? When you're not nice that the bad things happen to you?" Her remarks triggered anger across the Chinese-language media and were called "inappropriate" by the founder of one of China's biggest urban cinema chains, who said his company would not show the Hollywood star's films.You can click on the story to read more, but here are two ways in which it might have ended: 1) "Ng See-Yuen, founder of the UME Cineplex chain and the chairman of the Federation of Hong Kong Filmmakers, denied that his decision to ban Ms. Stone's film had anything to do with Basic Instinct 2: "I said her comments were 'inappropriate,' not 'God-awful dreck from the dredges of hell.'" 2) "After making her comments about karma, Ms. Stone stepped into an elevator, which mysteriously stopped soon afterwards and began playing a uninterrupted loop of Catwoman on its video monitor for the next ten hours."...";s:4:"guid";s:39:"3835@http://www.danieldrezner.com/blog/";s:2:"dc";a:2:{s:7:"subject";s:7:"culture";s:4:"date";s:25:"2008-05-28T08:54:41-05:00";}s:7:"summary";s:1744:"From the Hollywood Reporter's Karen Chu: Sharon Stone, who last year was a guest of the Shanghai International Film Festival, now faces a boycott of her films in China after she suggested the devastating May 12 earthquake there could have been the result of bad "karma." Stone's remarks, made Thursday at the Festival de Cannes, pondered a link between the earthquake -- which to date has taken the lives of more than 65,000 -- and China's treatment of ethnic Tibetans and their exiled spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, whom she called "a good friend." "I'm not happy about the way the Chinese are treating the Tibetans because I don't think anyone should be unkind to anyone else," Stone said in a brief red-carpet interview with Cable Entertainment News of Hong Kong. "And then this earthquake and all this stuff happened, and then I thought, is that karma? When you're not nice that the bad things happen to you?" Her remarks triggered anger across the Chinese-language media and were called "inappropriate" by the founder of one of China's biggest urban cinema chains, who said his company would not show the Hollywood star's films.You can click on the story to read more, but here are two ways in which it might have ended: 1) "Ng See-Yuen, founder of the UME Cineplex chain and the chairman of the Federation of Hong Kong Filmmakers, denied that his decision to ban Ms. Stone's film had anything to do with Basic Instinct 2: "I said her comments were 'inappropriate,' not 'God-awful dreck from the dredges of hell.'" 2) "After making her comments about karma, Ms. Stone stepped into an elevator, which mysteriously stopped soon afterwards and began playing a uninterrupted loop of Catwoman on its video monitor for the next ten hours."...";}i:8;a:6:{s:5:"title";s:24:"What made me laugh today";s:4:"link";s:49:"http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003834.html";s:11:"description";s:1875:"If you read much about baseball on the web, you soon discover that Kansas City Star beat writer Joe Posnanski is someone who's worth reading. Posnanski proves this today in a hysterically funny tirade against those who worship at the feet of Derek Jeter -- not Jeter himself, but rather those who deify him. In fact, he invents a word for it: Jeterate (verb) meaning “to praise someone for something of which he or she is entirely unworthy of praise.” Example: “The father could not but jeterate his daughter for coloring on the wall because she looked so cute.”.... See, the thing is Derek Jeter is such a good baseball player — I mean, we are talking about a no-doubt, first ballot Hall of Famer here — that people don’t need to jeterate him for his fielding. The guy sucks as a defensive shortstop, OK? He’s brutal out there. Every detailed defensive number shows it. He’s back near the bottom again in zone rating and range factor and, I’m sure, the Dewan plus/minus. Plus every scout who pays attention knows he can’t go two steps to his left and his arm is subpar. It’s OK! Really! He doesn’t have to be Mark Belanger. He’s a great hitter! He plays every day! He’s makes up for some of his flaws with his awareness and mental stamina! I wouldn’t be bothered by his defensive liabilities, I really wouldn’t, except, well, you know, so many people don’t think he HAS defensive liabilities. They give him freaking gold gloves. They knight him Sir Derek of Defensive Wizardry because 238 years ago he tagged Jeremy Giambi and jumped into the crowd on a foul ball.This is not the part that made me laugh (well, OK, I'm enough of a Sox fan to admit to a cackle or two here). No, you'll have to click on the post and read Posnanski's imagined dialogue between the minds of Derek Jeter, Bobby Abreu, and A-Rod to understand why I was laughing out loud. Hat tip: David Pinto....";s:4:"guid";s:39:"3834@http://www.danieldrezner.com/blog/";s:2:"dc";a:2:{s:7:"subject";s:6:"Sports";s:4:"date";s:25:"2008-05-27T11:38:20-05:00";}s:7:"summary";s:1875:"If you read much about baseball on the web, you soon discover that Kansas City Star beat writer Joe Posnanski is someone who's worth reading. Posnanski proves this today in a hysterically funny tirade against those who worship at the feet of Derek Jeter -- not Jeter himself, but rather those who deify him. In fact, he invents a word for it: Jeterate (verb) meaning “to praise someone for something of which he or she is entirely unworthy of praise.” Example: “The father could not but jeterate his daughter for coloring on the wall because she looked so cute.”.... See, the thing is Derek Jeter is such a good baseball player — I mean, we are talking about a no-doubt, first ballot Hall of Famer here — that people don’t need to jeterate him for his fielding. The guy sucks as a defensive shortstop, OK? He’s brutal out there. Every detailed defensive number shows it. He’s back near the bottom again in zone rating and range factor and, I’m sure, the Dewan plus/minus. Plus every scout who pays attention knows he can’t go two steps to his left and his arm is subpar. It’s OK! Really! He doesn’t have to be Mark Belanger. He’s a great hitter! He plays every day! He’s makes up for some of his flaws with his awareness and mental stamina! I wouldn’t be bothered by his defensive liabilities, I really wouldn’t, except, well, you know, so many people don’t think he HAS defensive liabilities. They give him freaking gold gloves. They knight him Sir Derek of Defensive Wizardry because 238 years ago he tagged Jeremy Giambi and jumped into the crowd on a foul ball.This is not the part that made me laugh (well, OK, I'm enough of a Sox fan to admit to a cackle or two here). No, you'll have to click on the post and read Posnanski's imagined dialogue between the minds of Derek Jeter, Bobby Abreu, and A-Rod to understand why I was laughing out loud. Hat tip: David Pinto....";}i:9;a:6:{s:5:"title";s:24:"Where should Hillary go?";s:4:"link";s:49:"http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003833.html";s:11:"description";s:2281:"The New York Times' Carl Hulse and the Washington Post's Shailagh Murray and Paul Kane file similar reports: the notion that Hillary Clinton will downshift from presidential candidate to Senate Majority Leader or a similarly high-ranking position is complete fiction. To sum up: Clinton does not have a ton of seniority. All the high-ranking Dems show no signs of budging. Based on endorsements, it's not clear how many members of her caucus really like Clinton all that much. If the best post she can get is the chairmanship of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, we're not talking about a lot of plum advancement possibilities for Hillary Clinton. Whither Hillary? There's been a lot of careless chatter about other career possibilities for Hillary Clinton -- vice president, governor of New York, Supreme Court Justice, etc. -- so as part of this blog's continuing dedication to careless chatter, the following are the top five jobs she should consider after losing the nomination: 1) Secretary of Defense. Following up on my bloggingheads debate with Megan McArdle, if Hillary Clinton truly wants to continue her trailblazing path, Obama shouldn't make her VP, he should give her this job. Given the current military state of play, it's not going to be a fun assignment. This has the added benefit of (relatively) sidelining Bill Clinton -- a cabinet spouse has a lower profile. 2) Buy and run The New Republic. Hey, campaign debts aside, she has the money. Marty Peretz, watch your back. 3) Give Oprah a run for her money. Hey, her numbers are down, and if Cinton started a talk show, she'd be able to deepen her bond with the very demographic she claims to command now. Plus, sticking it to Obama's chief celebrity endorser would have to be a fringe benefit. 4) Produce, direct, write and star in new documentary "An Inconvenient Campaign." Look, if Al Gore can go from world class stiff to possessing the World's Most Awesome Mantle Ever, I have every confidence that Hillary Clinton could start rubbing shoulders with environmental celebrity activists within two months of trying. 5) Enter Dancing with the Stars competition. Based on this video, I have to think she'd at least place in the top three: Another possibility: replace Paula Abdul on American Idol....";s:4:"guid";s:39:"3833@http://www.danieldrezner.com/blog/";s:2:"dc";a:2:{s:7:"subject";s:8:"politics";s:4:"date";s:25:"2008-05-27T09:11:33-05:00";}s:7:"summary";s:2281:"The New York Times' Carl Hulse and the Washington Post's Shailagh Murray and Paul Kane file similar reports: the notion that Hillary Clinton will downshift from presidential candidate to Senate Majority Leader or a similarly high-ranking position is complete fiction. To sum up: Clinton does not have a ton of seniority. All the high-ranking Dems show no signs of budging. Based on endorsements, it's not clear how many members of her caucus really like Clinton all that much. If the best post she can get is the chairmanship of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, we're not talking about a lot of plum advancement possibilities for Hillary Clinton. Whither Hillary? There's been a lot of careless chatter about other career possibilities for Hillary Clinton -- vice president, governor of New York, Supreme Court Justice, etc. -- so as part of this blog's continuing dedication to careless chatter, the following are the top five jobs she should consider after losing the nomination: 1) Secretary of Defense. Following up on my bloggingheads debate with Megan McArdle, if Hillary Clinton truly wants to continue her trailblazing path, Obama shouldn't make her VP, he should give her this job. Given the current military state of play, it's not going to be a fun assignment. This has the added benefit of (relatively) sidelining Bill Clinton -- a cabinet spouse has a lower profile. 2) Buy and run The New Republic. Hey, campaign debts aside, she has the money. Marty Peretz, watch your back. 3) Give Oprah a run for her money. Hey, her numbers are down, and if Cinton started a talk show, she'd be able to deepen her bond with the very demographic she claims to command now. Plus, sticking it to Obama's chief celebrity endorser would have to be a fringe benefit. 4) Produce, direct, write and star in new documentary "An Inconvenient Campaign." Look, if Al Gore can go from world class stiff to possessing the World's Most Awesome Mantle Ever, I have every confidence that Hillary Clinton could start rubbing shoulders with environmental celebrity activists within two months of trying. 5) Enter Dancing with the Stars competition. Based on this video, I have to think she'd at least place in the top three: Another possibility: replace Paula Abdul on American Idol....";}i:10;a:6:{s:5:"title";s:33:"There are crazy people everywhere";s:4:"link";s:49:"http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003832.html";s:11:"description";s:1240:"Lots of people are fretting about the persistent and mistaken belief of some Americans that Barack Obama is a Muslim. [Not that there's anything wrong with that!--ed.] Over at his Politico blog, Ben Smith puts this 10% of mistaken Americans in perspective: [L]arge minorities of Americans consistently say they hold wildly out-of-the-mainstream views, often specifically discredited beliefs. In some cases, those views should make them pretty profoundly alienated from one party or the other. For instance: 22% believe President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance. 30% believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. 23% believe they've been in the presence of a ghost. 18% believe the sun revolves around the earth.Smith makes an excellent point here -- but I think he's actually being too modest. It's not just minorities of Americans who hold out-of-mainsteam views -- minorities (or majorities) of every nationality hold strange beliefs. In Africa, the Congo has been gripped by outsized fears of penis theft; a few years ago, there was the great vampire frenzy in Malawi. Lots of Brazilians believe the United States is hell-bent on taking over the Amazon. And let's not get into Arab public opinion on who was behind 9/11....";s:4:"guid";s:39:"3832@http://www.danieldrezner.com/blog/";s:2:"dc";a:2:{s:7:"subject";s:8:"politics";s:4:"date";s:25:"2008-05-26T23:55:40-05:00";}s:7:"summary";s:1240:"Lots of people are fretting about the persistent and mistaken belief of some Americans that Barack Obama is a Muslim. [Not that there's anything wrong with that!--ed.] Over at his Politico blog, Ben Smith puts this 10% of mistaken Americans in perspective: [L]arge minorities of Americans consistently say they hold wildly out-of-the-mainstream views, often specifically discredited beliefs. In some cases, those views should make them pretty profoundly alienated from one party or the other. For instance: 22% believe President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance. 30% believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. 23% believe they've been in the presence of a ghost. 18% believe the sun revolves around the earth.Smith makes an excellent point here -- but I think he's actually being too modest. It's not just minorities of Americans who hold out-of-mainsteam views -- minorities (or majorities) of every nationality hold strange beliefs. In Africa, the Congo has been gripped by outsized fears of penis theft; a few years ago, there was the great vampire frenzy in Malawi. Lots of Brazilians believe the United States is hell-bent on taking over the Amazon. And let's not get into Arab public opinion on who was behind 9/11....";}i:11;a:6:{s:5:"title";s:47:"Are authoritative public intellectuals extinct?";s:4:"link";s:49:"http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003821.html";s:11:"description";s:1610:"In his column today, David Brooks makes an provocative closing point: People in the 1950s used to earnestly debate the role of the intellectual in modern politics. But the Lionel Trilling authority-figure has been displaced by the mass class of blog-writing culture producers. Intriguingly, Brooks' observation echoes some of the reactions in the blogosphere to my public intellectuals paper. Take Take Kevin Drum, for example: I think I might argue that even if the overall PI scene is still vibrant, 40 years ago there were a small number of what you might call mega-intellectuals — people like Buckley and Chomsky and Galbraith and Friedman — who had a bigger influence on public discourse than any single public intellectual does today. Nobody on Dan's list really seems to compete on quite the same plane as some of those 50s and 60s superstars. This might just be the hindsight bias that he talks about earlier in his piece, but if you had to nominate someone to be as influential today as Buckley and Galbraith were in their time, who would you choose? No one really comes to mind. Ezra Klein made similar points last week as well. Let's take as given the assertion that today's public intellectual scene is robust in terms of number, but that there are fewer "giants" than there used to be (I don't, just as I don't think a lot of people in the fifties .were earnestly debating the role of the public intellectual, but whatever). Klein, Brooks and Drum all write about this with a tinge of regret. I'd argue that the forces driving this are -- mostly -- healthy developments for public discourse.......";s:4:"guid";s:39:"3821@http://www.danieldrezner.com/blog/";s:2:"dc";a:2:{s:7:"subject";s:8:"Academia";s:4:"date";s:25:"2008-05-23T09:22:45-05:00";}s:7:"summary";s:1610:"In his column today, David Brooks makes an provocative closing point: People in the 1950s used to earnestly debate the role of the intellectual in modern politics. But the Lionel Trilling authority-figure has been displaced by the mass class of blog-writing culture producers. Intriguingly, Brooks' observation echoes some of the reactions in the blogosphere to my public intellectuals paper. Take Take Kevin Drum, for example: I think I might argue that even if the overall PI scene is still vibrant, 40 years ago there were a small number of what you might call mega-intellectuals — people like Buckley and Chomsky and Galbraith and Friedman — who had a bigger influence on public discourse than any single public intellectual does today. Nobody on Dan's list really seems to compete on quite the same plane as some of those 50s and 60s superstars. This might just be the hindsight bias that he talks about earlier in his piece, but if you had to nominate someone to be as influential today as Buckley and Galbraith were in their time, who would you choose? No one really comes to mind. Ezra Klein made similar points last week as well. Let's take as given the assertion that today's public intellectual scene is robust in terms of number, but that there are fewer "giants" than there used to be (I don't, just as I don't think a lot of people in the fifties .were earnestly debating the role of the public intellectual, but whatever). Klein, Brooks and Drum all write about this with a tinge of regret. I'd argue that the forces driving this are -- mostly -- healthy developments for public discourse.......";}i:12;a:6:{s:5:"title";s:27:"Bloggingheads 911:  Miami!!";s:4:"link";s:49:"http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003831.html";s:11:"description";s:412:"What happens when Bloggingheads.tv has three planned diavlogs collapse at the last minute? Why, they break the glass and call on the most reliable media whore in the business -- and Megan McArdle!! Go check it out. Topics discussed include the recent Israel-Syria negotiations, the uber-lame-duckness of George W. Bush, Black Lieutenant Syndrome, and the difficulties women can face trying to get the top job....";s:4:"guid";s:39:"3831@http://www.danieldrezner.com/blog/";s:2:"dc";a:2:{s:7:"subject";s:8:"personal";s:4:"date";s:25:"2008-05-22T23:41:53-05:00";}s:7:"summary";s:412:"What happens when Bloggingheads.tv has three planned diavlogs collapse at the last minute? Why, they break the glass and call on the most reliable media whore in the business -- and Megan McArdle!! Go check it out. Topics discussed include the recent Israel-Syria negotiations, the uber-lame-duckness of George W. Bush, Black Lieutenant Syndrome, and the difficulties women can face trying to get the top job....";}i:13;a:6:{s:5:"title";s:35:"I'm huge in Ontario.... huge, I say";s:4:"link";s:49:"http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003830.html";s:11:"description";s:711:"The Agenda with Steve Paikin is TV Ontario's equivalent of Charlie Rose...at least, that's what they tell me. Anyway, I participated in their show on "The International Order" earlier this week: The search for a new international order at a time of profound global change: Is the global system established in the wake of WWII still working? Do organizations such as the UN, the World Bank and the IMF need to be reformed ... or replaced? You can access the video by clicking here. Other participants include Janice Gross Stein, Richard Rosecrance, Alan Alexandroff, Patricia Goff, and David Rothkopf. As an added treat, if you watch the whole thing, you'll catch the conversation about me and my eye-rolling....";s:4:"guid";s:39:"3830@http://www.danieldrezner.com/blog/";s:2:"dc";a:2:{s:7:"subject";s:13:"globalization";s:4:"date";s:25:"2008-05-22T08:14:09-05:00";}s:7:"summary";s:711:"The Agenda with Steve Paikin is TV Ontario's equivalent of Charlie Rose...at least, that's what they tell me. Anyway, I participated in their show on "The International Order" earlier this week: The search for a new international order at a time of profound global change: Is the global system established in the wake of WWII still working? Do organizations such as the UN, the World Bank and the IMF need to be reformed ... or replaced? You can access the video by clicking here. Other participants include Janice Gross Stein, Richard Rosecrance, Alan Alexandroff, Patricia Goff, and David Rothkopf. As an added treat, if you watch the whole thing, you'll catch the conversation about me and my eye-rolling....";}i:14;a:6:{s:5:"title";s:61:"A powerful incentive to fix the comments feature on this blog";s:4:"link";s:49:"http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003829.html";s:11:"description";s:1293:"Longtime readers are likely aware that I've been relatively slow to fix the comments feature on the blog. Partly this was due to being distracted by the day job, partly because I enjoy the peace and quiet that comes with an end to comment spam. It appears that John McCain has provided me with an incentive to fix the comments. According to Politico's Jonathan Martin: John McCain's campaign is using their campaign website to encourage supporters to post supportive comments on political blogs, including the most well-known liberal site in the blogosphere. And to make things easier, they're including talking points with which sympathizers can use to get out the McCain message. "Select from the numerous web, blog and news sites listed here, go there, and make your opinions supporting John McCain known," instructs the page. McCain supporters are asked to send the details of their comment to the campaign, which in turn will verify it and then reward the supporter with "points" (assumedly to accumulate for McCain swag).[Um... according to McCain's campaign site, the blogs of attention are Red State, DailyKos, and Jeff Emmanuel. Plus, it's the commenters getting paid, not you--ed. Ah, but I can delete their comments unless they hand over the McCain swag! Mmmmmmm..... swag!--ed.]...";s:4:"guid";s:39:"3829@http://www.danieldrezner.com/blog/";s:2:"dc";a:2:{s:7:"subject";s:8:"politics";s:4:"date";s:25:"2008-05-21T14:23:46-05:00";}s:7:"summary";s:1293:"Longtime readers are likely aware that I've been relatively slow to fix the comments feature on the blog. Partly this was due to being distracted by the day job, partly because I enjoy the peace and quiet that comes with an end to comment spam. It appears that John McCain has provided me with an incentive to fix the comments. According to Politico's Jonathan Martin: John McCain's campaign is using their campaign website to encourage supporters to post supportive comments on political blogs, including the most well-known liberal site in the blogosphere. And to make things easier, they're including talking points with which sympathizers can use to get out the McCain message. "Select from the numerous web, blog and news sites listed here, go there, and make your opinions supporting John McCain known," instructs the page. McCain supporters are asked to send the details of their comment to the campaign, which in turn will verify it and then reward the supporter with "points" (assumedly to accumulate for McCain swag).[Um... according to McCain's campaign site, the blogs of attention are Red State, DailyKos, and Jeff Emmanuel. Plus, it's the commenters getting paid, not you--ed. Ah, but I can delete their comments unless they hand over the McCain swag! Mmmmmmm..... swag!--ed.]...";}}s:7:"channel";a:6:{s:5:"title";s:17:"Daniel W. Drezner";s:4:"link";s:34:"http://www.danieldrezner.com/blog/";s:11:"description";s:92:"Politics, economics, globalization, academia, pop culture... all from a tenured perspective.";s:2:"dc";a:3:{s:8:"language";s:5:"en-us";s:7:"creator";s:21:"ddrezner@uchicago.edu";s:4:"date";s:25:"2008-06-03T23:29:39-05:00";}s:2:"sy";a:3:{s:12:"updateperiod";s:6:"hourly";s:15:"updatefrequency";s:1:"1";s:10:"updatebase";s:22:"2000-01-01T12:00+00:00";}s:7:"tagline";s:92:"Politics, economics, globalization, academia, pop culture... all from a tenured perspective.";}s:9:"textinput";a:0:{}s:5:"image";a:0:{}s:9:"feed_type";s:3:"RSS";s:12:"feed_version";s:3:"2.0";s:5:"stack";a:0:{}s:9:"inchannel";b:0;s:6:"initem";b:0;s:9:"incontent";b:0;s:11:"intextinput";b:0;s:7:"inimage";b:0;s:13:"current_field";s:0:"";s:17:"current_namespace";b:0;s:5:"ERROR";s:0:"";s:19:"_CONTENT_CONSTRUCTS";a:6:{i:0;s:7:"content";i:1;s:7:"summary";i:2;s:4:"info";i:3;s:5:"title";i:4;s:7:"tagline";i:5;s:9:"copyright";}s:13:"last_modified";s:31:"Wed, 04 Jun 2008 03:36:36 GMT
";s:4:"etag";s:25:""12c4021-6c3b-48460dc4"
";}