Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Clinton Gains Teachers Union Endorsement
I am sure this endorsement has been in the works for a long time, but added to the fundraising numbers that were released yesterday, it sure looks like the Clinton machine is starting to roll.
Limbaugh and the Senate
I don't know or care about what Limbaugh said or didn't say about "phony" soldiers last week, but having a vote in the Senate to condemn the talk show host for what he said is a little to close to government censorship for my taste.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Hillary's Fundraising Surprise
A few months ago Obama hit the big time when he showed he could raise money at least as fast as Hillary. Until that time his was pretty much a vanity candidacy that few really took seriously. Well recent fundraising disclosures show a BIG Hillary advantage in the 3rd quarter. This will come as a severe blow to Obama. While I suspect the youth vote (or nonvote) will stay with Obama, the reliable voters and their money will go to Hillary now. I think this is the beginning of the end of the Obama candidacy. He will certainly make it through most of the primary season and will be a player on the national stage for a long time to come, but he won't be President in 2009. (It will be interesting to see when the mea culpas start from the former Clintonistas who defected.)
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0132284620071002?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0132284620071002?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Monday, October 1, 2007
I read over the weekend (on various other blogs) that someone has made a "Stop Hillary Clinton" facebook page. With 463,740 member and counting it eclipses Hillary's facebook page by 418,802 members. I don't want to read to much into this. I suspect that average facebook users are skewed way younger than typical voters and way, way younger than typical primary voters; however, I am a little surprised by the negative feelings about Hillary among facebook users, many of whom probably don't remember her as an unpopular first lady at all.
Selena Roberts Article in Sunday's New York Times
In her Sports of the Times column on Sunday, Selena Roberts laments the trend in aggressive fundraising by college athletics programs. While the argument made in the column is fuzzy, muddled and far from compelling, I agree that the vast amounts of money poured into college athletics programs does nothing to benefit the educational mission of the universities and a case could be make that this kind of fund raising actually hurts a university's academics by siphoning off funds from academic uses.
The reason I even mention her column at all is not because of her position on university fundraising, but her misleading and/or sloppy writing. Specifically, about midway through the column Ms. Roberts writes: "The math book doesn’t lie. The Chronicle of Higher Education released a report last week that detailed how gifts to 119 of the largest athletic departments in the country have, in some cases, tripled in recent years, but donations to academics have remained flat."
The above passage purports to compare the change in gifts over the last few years between academics and athletics; and while it states that academic gifts have remained flat it never provides corresponding information for athletic giving, it only says that such "gifts . . . have, in some cases, tripled in recent years." I can't help but wonder what the actual amount was for athletic gifts why such amount is not presented.
Also after a reading the release from The Chronicle of Higher Education that Ms. Roberts cites for the above statement, I discovered that far from remaining flat, academic gifts increased over 38% from 1998 to 2003.
This morning I emailed Ms. Roberts these same comments. I wonder if I will receive a reply? I will let you know if I do.
full text of Ms. Roberts' column can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/sports/ncaafootball/30roberts.html?ei=5087%0A&em=&en=fa2ca5cf32332b3c&ex=1191384000&pagewanted=print
The reason I even mention her column at all is not because of her position on university fundraising, but her misleading and/or sloppy writing. Specifically, about midway through the column Ms. Roberts writes: "The math book doesn’t lie. The Chronicle of Higher Education released a report last week that detailed how gifts to 119 of the largest athletic departments in the country have, in some cases, tripled in recent years, but donations to academics have remained flat."
The above passage purports to compare the change in gifts over the last few years between academics and athletics; and while it states that academic gifts have remained flat it never provides corresponding information for athletic giving, it only says that such "gifts . . . have, in some cases, tripled in recent years." I can't help but wonder what the actual amount was for athletic gifts why such amount is not presented.
Also after a reading the release from The Chronicle of Higher Education that Ms. Roberts cites for the above statement, I discovered that far from remaining flat, academic gifts increased over 38% from 1998 to 2003.
This morning I emailed Ms. Roberts these same comments. I wonder if I will receive a reply? I will let you know if I do.
full text of Ms. Roberts' column can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/sports/ncaafootball/30roberts.html?ei=5087%0A&em=&en=fa2ca5cf32332b3c&ex=1191384000&pagewanted=print
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
