Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about role models and how important they are.

Take, for example, the tennis world. Monica Seles (my childhood tennis hero and the reason why I play with a two-handed backhand) dominated tennis in the late 1980s, and 20 years later there is a generation of Serbian tennis stars inspired by her success — Ana Ivanovic (women’s number 1), Jelena Jankovic (women’s number 2) and Novak Djokovic (men’s number 3 and rising). Similarly, Anna Kournikova’s success inspired a lot of Russian tennis parents to invest more seriously in their daughters’ tennis education. The result is that 5 of the top 10 female tennis players are Russian.

There are, of course, role models who are not athletes. Entertainers also have the ability to inspire. Forbes just published its list of most powerful celebrities, and three of the top 5 celebrities are black and very well paid: Oprah Winfrey (number 1 with 2007 income of $275 million), Tiger Woods (number 2 with 2007 income of $115 million ) and Beyoncé Knowles (number 4 with 2007 income of $80 million). (Angelina Jolie is number 3 with 2007 income of $14 million, and David Beckham is number 5 with 2007 income of $50 million.)

I have no doubt that Oprah’s, Tiger’s and Beyonce’s success will inspire generations of future black athletes, entertainers and moguls.

I myself draw inspiration from their struggles and successes.

That being said, their success does little to undermine the common stereotype that blacks are just great athletes who can sing and dance. In no way do I want to downplay the success of stars like Beyoncé and especially not of Oprah. But my point is that while their amazing collective success and spending power show the value of hard work, God-given talent and clever marketing plans, and while they are trailblazers that still have to overcome remnants of racism within their respective industries, their success comes within an entertainment industry that has traditionally been relatively open to blacks.

That’s why I’m so happy that Obama won the Democratic nomination. I was rooting for Hillary, in part because I grew up with the Clintons and felt a certain amount of nostalgia. But even more importantly, I never thought that white people would vote for Obama, and I didn’t want to see another Republican in office. I thought it was impossible that a black man could become the Democratic Party’s nominee, and even more impossible that he would have a decent chance at becoming the next president of the United States.

I grew up surrounded by heroes, some of whom were famous black athletes and entertainers.

But the possibility of a black President never even entered into the realm of conscious thought, much less hope.

And it’s not like we’ll have to wait 20 years to see the immediate benefits of Obama’s trailblazing campaign. My mother, for example, is driving all over the East Coast to participate in the Obama campaign. He is causing black people of all ages to re-evaluate America and themselves. Before his campaign, my mother had never actively participated in the political process other than to vote. Now she’s giving donations, recruiting friends, calling me whenever there is an important Obama update . . . .

So I think that this is a really unique moment, not just because I can’t wait to get rid of George Bush and replace him with someone with a brain and a heart, but also because Obama’s campaign destroys one of the last areas where blacks have been denied access, where I thought it was impossible even to contemplate a possibility of success.

I mean, outside of Africa and the Caribbean, has a black person ever been elected to run a country in which blacks are a racial minority? Probably not, because there’s still a lingering suspicion/stereotype that blacks simply aren’t smart or capable enough (unless they’re Republicans, in which case they almost have to repudiate their “blackness” in exchange for political gain.)

On the other hand, there are already women running major Western countries and/or campaigning for the top spot, so we know it’s at least possible to dream of a female President.

But blacks have largely been unable to dream this dream. Until now . . .

Now it seems that maybe we can sing, dance, play sports and run countries too.

It’s official. Highgrowth Partners is the latest investor in migoa. Oriol, Albert, Dennis, Didac and I are obviously quite happy. (Si prefieres leer en Español ya puedes en mi nuevo blog, www.garystew.es.)

As Javier posted in his blog, we met Highgrowth about a year and a half ago when we were making the rounds to Barcelona-based business angels and venture capitalists. With a few years of hindsight, I can honestly admit that at that point we really didn’t have much of a clue about the Internet world or how we’d make our business work. But we were a couple of reasonably intelligent guys who were really hungry to leave our marks on the world. In addition, we had decent CVs, which meant that we were hopeful that the years of education and training at multinational organizations would translate into some possibility of success as entrepreneurs. And though we noted some interpersonal connection with Mercè and Jaume, they told us something equivalent to “keep in touch”, which is what all of the VCs tell you when they’re not really interested in investing in you at the moment but want to keep the doors open just in case you might someday become more investment-ready.

We knew that networking counts, and more than that, we thought Mercè and Jaume were pretty cool (it helps that we’re all more or less the same age), so we kept in touch with them, sending them updates about how the company was evolving, about new prizes won, new business angels who had come on board, etc. The response was always very polite, until one day out of seemingly nowhere they invited us to present our project to a network of business angels in Helsinki. So we went to Finland for 3 days, during which time we were able to confirm that we had good rapport with the Highgrowth team on a personal level. In addition, we were able to explain our ideas about nuroa in a lot more detail, and they were able to see how a group of international business angels responded to Oriol and me as entrepreneurs and to the project itself.

After Helsinki, I can’t say that we had any particular expectations about receiving an investment from Highgrowth. By that point, we’d been meeting with VCs in London, in France, in Germany — basically, any interesting investor who was interested in meeting with us. And then suddenly one day, Oriol told me that he’d received a call from Highgrowth saying that nuroa was now sufficiently mature to be investment-ready.

I guess what they liked was that ever since our initial contact, we’d explained to them our various short-term objectives and we’d accomplished them. Of course, the business model now has evolved a lot since our initial meeting with Highgrowth, which I think is pretty normal. Unless you’re Nostradamus, being an entrepreneur involves a lot of trial and error. But that being said, they saw that were progressing in a positive direction, and I guess they liked that.

Now don’t get me wrong. We’ve made a lot of mistakes in terms of hiring and with regard to our certain aspects of the product. And I’m still not 100% satisfied with where we are with either the product or our marketing efforts. But that being said, it’s not so easy to be selected by elite analysts for prizes and/or recognition from Red Herring, Essential Web, Demo Germany, Global Innovate, etc. or to receive lots of financing from the Spanish and Catalan governments via CIDEM and CDTI (funds reserved for “innovative” technologies), or to convince experienced entrepreneurs like Albert and Dennis that they should invest their hard-earned money in you. So despite some negative commentaries for a distinct minority of  bloggers, I think that we’ve generally shown that we’re not so stupid. In fact, it seems that the funds speak amongst themselves, and the general feedback that I’ve gotten from various sources is that some international investors think that our team is pretty decent and that it’d be the basis of any eventual success that we might someday have. Investors all want to minimize their risks, and one way of doing this to look at what other investors and analysts think about you, and in our case we were greatly helped by the generally favourable feedback.

So how do I feel now? On the one hand, I’m quite happy. It’s a lot of money, so we now have the luxury of a few months of not having to worry about making it to the end of the month, which means that we can really focus on perfecting the product and increasing our profile. And it’s always nice to receive monetary validation from investors. We have it 100% clear that the money that we received was not a gift. VCs have a lot of attractive candidates, and their job is to choose the projects that they view as the most promising. It feels good to know that we were Highgrowth’s first investment in 2008.

At the same time, I guess I’m a little bit more stressed, because we’re no longer in the minor leagues. VCs impose their conditions and set their objectives, which imposes a certain amount of pressure. That being said, negotiating with Highgrowth was a very humane process. I really can’t complain in that sense. I never had the sense that they were trying to take advantage of us. The final contract is pretty fair to both sides.

Nonetheless, it’s pretty clear that I now have a unique opportunity to do something interesting and/or important with my life. All of my studies and experiences (both good and bad) have prepared me for this moment. And if I fail, maybe I’ll never have another chance quite as interesting to realize my dreams and show the world of what I’m truly capable.

But in the end, I’m a pretty confident guy, and I believe fully in our project and in our team, so win or lose, all I’ve got to say is: “Bring it!”

I love Barcelona. As the people here say a lot, it has the perfect combination of “mar” (sea) and montaña (mountain). Beaches. Skiing. Great restaurants. Great food. Good-looking people. Great night life. What’s not to love? Carpe diem!

But lately I’ve begun to think that bohemian chic has its limitations. Let me explain. One of the things that I love most about Spain is that people here enjoy life. Too many people in the US have a 5-year plan they work like crazy to realize. On my very first visit to Barcelona, however, I realized that things here were different. I was 25 at the time, fresh out of law school. And I noticed that everyone here seemed so relaxed. Not a care in the world. They were all on the streets and partying. They embodied the Rent ethic that seemed so attractive after 7 years at Yale, busting my ass trying to be Maverick, trying to be the Top Gun. In this context, “La vie boheme! No day but today!” sounded especially appealing. You only have 525, 600 minutes in a year. How do you want to spend them? Forget all the bullshit and enjoy every day. Carpe diem!

That’s cool while you’re young and immortal. But as you get older, and you realize that you have fewer “todays” awaiting you, a long-term vision becomes unavoidable.

So what I loved about Barcelona when I first got here 7 years ago — the bohemian chic — looks more problematic as age gives me a little bit of perspective.

A few examples:

• Shitty service: One of my biggest pet peeves. The customer is the enemy, or at best irrelevant, in many Spanish businesses. If you want to come back, great. If not, who cares? Are you a loyal customer? That’s your problem! Just pay for your meal, and go — and I’m going to try as exploit you as much as possible while you’re here. Carpe Diem! For example, I eat at the same restaurant almost every day. For dessert, I usually get the arroz con leche, but one day I asked for the yogurt with honey. The waitress told me that they had honey, but I’d be charged extra for it. For a few drops of honey! Since then, I’ve been a little more reluctant to eat there. I don’t feel valued as a customer, so I’m trying to find my “Cheers” place — where everyone knows my name. And I’m not the only entrepreneur who laments this entrepreneurial short-sightedness in Spanish businesses. Yannick recounts a similar experience where a waitress charged for electricity when he plugged in his laptop! The title of the post says it all: A Catalan Starbucks, Impossible!

• Bye-bye 3GSM: A major international conference held in Catalunya? Impossible! Not quite, but given the oft short-sighted approach to business here, not far from the truth. A lot of blogs this week are lamenting that the organizers of the 3GSM conference want to leave Barcelona. The conference brings a lot of international prestige to Barcelona, but who cares? Let’s gouge the tourists! The petty thieves will rob them on the streets, the local businesspeople will rob them everywhere else, and the local government will remain largely silent because they’ll keep coming back, right? And all the taxi drivers that spend all day complaining in their smelly cabs about how tough life is will chat on their phones and drink coffee instead of attending to the surge of new clients, some of whom might even give tips. But who cares? Carpe diem!

Maybe it’s just a matter of getting old — from hippie to yuppie — or maybe bohemian chic really is an unsustainable way of life. Maybe as all of those long-haired, free love do-gooders of the 60s realized long ago, at some point we all have to grow up or suffer retarded development, both economically and personally.

Why do smart people do dumb things?

Why do we all take risks that we know are not worth it? The list is interminable: smoking, drinking, super-sizing your order at McDonalds, going to McDonalds, unprotected sex, promiscuity, cheating on your partner, drugs, not going to the gym, ignoring your mother’s phone calls, speeding around Barcelona on a motorbike, going at 160 km per hour on the highway when the speed limit is 110 . . . .

Why is it so good to be so bad?

Bill Clinton had his Monica Lewinsky. Sarkozy has his Carla Bruni. And now Eliot Spitzer, the Governor of New York, has his Emperor’s Club V.I.P. People are calling for his resignation after it was made public that he was “Client-9″ at a high-class prostitution ring with a taste for petite American brunettes. According to prosecutors, the Emperor’s Club operated in London, Paris, Miami and other cities, and charged between $1,000 and $5,500 an hour.

Spitzer, better than anyone else, should have known better. As attorney general, he made his career by angrily and enthusiastically hunting anyone and everyone that committed a crime, including members of prostitution rings, which he denounced as rife with human trafficking, drug trafficking and money laundering.

Now it seems that the sheriff was also an outlaw.

I’m trying not to judge him. As Britney Spears famously explained, “I’m not that innocent.” I’ve made my share of mistakes. I have my “bad boy” streak. Part of getting older is coming to grips with one’s own imperfections . . . realizing that youthful idealism is refreshing, but at the end of the day, we’re all very flawed human beings full of contradictions and hypocrisies that cause pain to ourselves and to our loved ones.

Good people do bad things.

But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t suck.

(By the way, the reference to “the spirit is willing . . .” is from the New Testament (Matthew 26:41), where Jesus tells his disciples on the night before he was crucified: “Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” The point is that Jesus himself was struggling with temptation, but he overcame it, unlike the weaker disciples.)

I know that I should stay out of politics, but I don’t usually do what I should.

I have to say that I’m very happy that Zapatero won. Or almost more to the point, I’m very happy that Rajoy lost. One xenophobic homophobic leader (ahem, Bush) is enough for me.

This morning as I sat in a cafe listening to my iPhone and reading the paper, I was a bit surprised by La Vanguardia’s (the Catalan newspaper’s) headline: “Zapatero Gana Por El Apoyo de Catalunya (Zapatero Wins Because of Catalunya’s Support)“. Probably true, but somehow I didn’t think that was the most important element of the story. It’s like if Obama wins and then the headline were “Obama wins because Blacks Voted for Him.” It would be undoubtedly true and marginally newsworthy, but for me there is so much more at stake than regional pride.

Anyway, when I got to the office, I thought it’d be interesting to look at how international newspapers covered the story. The Wall Street Journal’s headline was: “Socialists Win in Spain, Get Clear Mandate“. The WSJ defines the mandate as “engineering a soft landing for a country that has fueled European economic growth for a decade” — which, for me, is the most important thing, ahead of which region played what role in the electoral process.

For the most part, the Journal has a favourable write-up of Zapatero noting that “[t]he Socialists’ re-election is a clear vote of confidence in the charismatic Mr. Zapatero, who became prime minister four years ago at the age of 43. Mr. Zapatero’s tenure has focused on social issues, including introducing gay marriage and tougher penalties on domestic violence against women.” The Journal also seems reassured that Zapatero “can count on the well-respected former European Union Economic Affairs Commissioner and two-time Spanish Finance Minister Pedro Solbes, who is likely to be finance minister in the new government.” In short, Zapatero is seen as a charismatic leader with a clear mandate and an effective team. Not bad, considering that the Journal is a more conservative newspaper.

The New York Times, which has more of a liberal slant, also noted that the election gave Zapatero a clear, new mandate. The headline was “Socialists Re-elected in Spain, After Bitter Campaign“, and the article noted that “[d]espite a bitterly fought campaign, the outcome seemed to endorse some of Mr. Zapatero’s boldest decisions, including the withdrawal of Spain’s troops from Iraq, the granting of more autonomy to Spain’s rebellious regions, simplified divorce and the legalization of homosexual marriage.” Again, the focus is on the fact that Zapatero is a bold leader with a clear mandate to move Spain toward modernity (in line with the direction that the NYT has called for the US goverment to move in).

Interestingly, the NYT ran a story on Saturday in which the author noted that Rajoy seemed just the opposite of modern. The reporter explained: “Mr. Rajoy, a 52-year-old former interior and education minister, has not been helped by his personal style. He has a graying beard, apparently to cover scars from a car accident years ago, that makes him look old-fashioned and older than his years. He laces his speeches with 19th-century expressions and suffers from unfortunate nervous habits, sticking out his tongue and bulging his eyes when he is angry.”

I agree with the Times and the Journal. Rajoy was an unwanted blast-from-the past that used fear of difference (gays and immigrants, among others) to win votes. Zapatero’s message was more inclusive and optimisic. So I prefer Zapatero. I think that he’s moving Spain in the right direction. The economic downturn is scary, but thanks to the Bush family, I’ve already lived through a few recessions, so what’s one more? It’s part of the cycle of life. What goes up, must come down . . .

My only hope is that either Obama or Hillary will win, because 8 years of Bush is almost more than I can bear. The US needs someone to take us back in the right direction.

Axe!

I still have Brazil on my mind.

Carnaval was hot! Both literally and figuratively.

Hanging out in Bahia

We flew from Barcelona to Salvador de Bahia by way of Madrid. Victor (our product manager and star blogger) picked us up at the airport and then drove us to his home, where his parents and his brother had waited up so that they could join us for dinner. The Aloi family was really, really cool and really, really generous. They have a nice duplex penthouse apartment with a swimming pool on the roof and a full-time housekeeper. They made our stay pure joy. I felt like David Beckham! They got hold of a friend’s yacht, and took us island hopping in All Saints Bay (the biggest bay in Brazil). They got us free passes to go to various Carnaval events like the camarote (like a VIP area where you can see Carnaval from a balcony area with open bar and kitchen, but where you don’t have to mix with the rowdy crowd). It definitely was not a backpackers’ trip.

Actually, the rowdy crowd was my favorite part of the Carnaval experience. The camarote was fun, but being in the Carnaval crowd feels like being in a cult, or like being an Obama supporter, like you’re a part of an exciting movement where the communal experience is the most important part. And, of course, everyone is drunk, so it makes socializing a lot easier. Maybe too easy. We entered a kissing challenge, where each night the goal was to kiss as many people as possible. It was something that everyone in Bahia does during Carnaval, apparently. Being from the US (i.e., anti-PDAs — public displays of affection), I couldn’t really get into the game. So Victor’s aunts ridiculed me and called me “Pretty Woman”, in reference to Julia Robert’s statement in the movie that kissing is more intimate than sex. I was like a little old lady in that crowd.

(By the way, Zum Zum Zum Zum Zum Baba — the title of this post — is the chorus to one of the most popular songs that we listened to during Carnaval.)

On the second night in Rio, we went to a samba school, where we saw all of the samba girls practicing their moves. It was an amazing experience. The dancers know how to shake their junk in the trunk. We even got to dance with some of them.

The only bad thing about Rio was that it was overcast most of the time we were there. But it’s still Rio — amazingly beautiful.

Off to the beach

On the last couple of days of Carnaval (it lasts 6 days and some Brazilian entertainers are pushing to make it 9 days!), we went to a really cool island called Morro de Sao Paulo. We watched futvoley (which is volleyball but played like soccer, so you can only use your body, your head and your feet — but not your hands) and drank caipirihnas made of mango, kiwi, coconut and other tropical fruits.

I’m already planning for Carnaval 2009!

I don’t know why I keep doing it, since it seems that the Wall Street Journal thrives on publishing racially insensitive op-ed pieces, but yesterday got annoyed again when I read John McWhorter’s op-ed piece called “Hillary and MLK“.

Hillary Clinton made the rather dumb observation that Lyndon B. Johnson had been instrumental in pushing through the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which effectively outlawed racial apartheid in the United States. It represented the culmination of the rights for which Martin Luther King had fought and died. Getting the Civil Rights enacted — something that a lot of White Southerners opposed — required a politician with LBJ’s great skills and understanding of how Washington’s political machinery worked.

Hillary’s point was that she could be the Civil Rights Movement’s next LBJ — the sympathetic white president who has the legislative skill and experience to push through difficult civil rights legislation. Community activists (which is what Obama has been throughout much of his life) are essentially the poor man’s lobbyists, but there are many better paid, more influential lobbyists, and that’s a large part of the reason that blacks have not made so many significant political advances since the Civil Rights Era. They don’t have enough political influence.

The President of the United States is the most powerful and influential person in the US (in the world?), and having him (or her) on your side will do a lot to help you win difficult political battles.

So why do I say it was a dumb comment? Hillary was 100% right in her observation, but it was probably not the best comment to make when you need to convince black voters that they should vote for you instead of the first viable black presidential candidate. It’s precisely because everyone knows that the President of the United States is the most powerful person on the planet that many blacks are drawn to support Obama — he’ll probably “feel their pain” better than Hillary can. For him, it’s not just a moral obligation, or the right thing to do. It’s personal.

Hillary’s comment was therefore substantively correct, but politically stupid.

So when I read McWhorter’s piece, I wasn’t annoyed by his premise: That Hillary Clinton has demonstrated that she is a civil rights warrior, and no matter how dumb the comment, she is probably not the biggest threat to the black community.

But I was annoyed by his tone. He remarks that blacks are paranoid and lack self-confidence, and that’s the reason why the black community took Hillary’s comment so personally. He writes:

“But why so very, very careful? What effect does it have on anyone’s life if that era is occasionally discussed in less than perfectly genuflective phraseology? Is the Klan waiting behind a hill? Will a black man working at an insurance company in Cleveland have a breakdown because someone didn’t give King precisely enough credit in a quick statement?

There is a willful frailty, a lack of self-confidence, in this kind of thinking. It suggests someone almost searching for things to claim injury about, donning the mantle of the noble victim in order to assuage a bruised ego. . . .

Well, politics is rarely pretty, but in this case the price is too high. For one, misinterpretation of statements in this vein makes black people look disinclined to process detail and context — in other words, dim. It only gives that much more fodder to views on black intelligence like those uttered by James Watson.“

But wait a second. I’m black and I agreed with the logic behind Hillary Clinton’s comment. And . . . surprise! He’s black too, and he agreed with Hillary’s comment. So why are all black people all of a sudden too insecure, too dumb and prone to proving James Watson’s theory that blacks are genetically inferior? Has he spoken to any black people before writing his op-ed? Or did he just listen to a few loud- mouth political activists like Al Sharpton who certainly do not speak for me and my black friends?

I remember when I was at Yale College, a conservative friend of mine tried to convince me to join her political group. Her rationale was that I was the kind of black guy that her conservative party would love to embrace. I’m sure that Colin Powell, Condeleeza Rice and Clarence Thomas were lured by similar entreaties — that they were the “smart ones” among the race of gifted dancers and athletes. I’m not saying that she was necessarily racist. Just that she was looking for a black poster child to show that her view of the world was colorblind. The logic there is a little twisted, isn’t it?

But forget about black people for a second. Which interest group in America isn’t overly sensitive? Aren’t all politics based on a volatile mix of lobbying for substantive rights and interests, whining and posturing? Isn’t that the American way in an era of political correctness? Gay groups got Isaiah Washington fired from “Grey’s Anatomy” for saying the word “faggot” on national television. The Jewish community has an advocacy group whose primary purpose is to scrutinize public statements that might be viewed as anti-Semitic, or in some cases, anti-Israel. Cuban-Americans fight vigorously against any measure that might even remotely reinforce support for Fidel Castro, to the point that it is pretty much illegal for Americans to travel to (or spend money in) Cuba.

And it’s not just minority groups that play this game. Rupert Murdoch, owner of the Wall Street Journal, has an entire television station devoted to fighting against the “left-wing” media, showing that even powerful white men get into the whole whining and word-parsing game.

Are all these groups also “dim”? Or is it only “dim” when black people do it?

I think it’s fairly disgusting when a black man feels like his only way to advance personally is at the cost of other blacks . . . like he wants to show the white world (and the Wall Street Journal’s target readers) that he is the genetic defect among his genetically inferior black brothers and sisters . . . the rest of us are idiots, but he’s been graced with the gift of keen insight. He probably wouldn’t have gotten published in the Wall Street Journal if he’d written the “obvious” piece noting that some black political leaders and Hillary Clinton were acting stupidly in this situation, so he chose to flavor his article and increase his chances of getting published by insinuating that this episode might prove to some that blacks as a race are genetically inferior.

All I can say is: “n***a, please”.

As I transition back into my day job as the CEO of an Internet start-up, I can’t help but reflect on what I’ve learned from the Hillary-Obama Battle Royale. Both politics and business involve a lot of careful strategic planning by very talented people. But in both areas, few of these well-laid plans ever play out as they were originally intended.

For example, both Hillary and Facebook were media darlings a few months ago, before being deemed profoundly “unlikeable” or “untrustworthy” and entering into the fight of their lives. Both seem to have survived these scares, but it’s unclear what the public’s final decision will be in either case.

On a more general level, I think that there are 5 key truths that apply as much to politics as it does to business:

5. When the going gets tough, a lot of investors get going. As soon as it seemed that she might lose the New Hampshire primary after already having lost the Iowa Caucuses, a lot of Hillary’s investors started to get cold feet, forcing the Clintons to have a lot of reassuring chats with their investors. Even in politics, a lot of investors want sure bets. As CEO of a property search start-up, I’ve often been surprised when some VCs seem annoyed that there’s some risk involved with start-up ventures. My advice is that if you are lucky enough to get various offers from VCs or business angels, go with the one who will be around when you face an unexpected setback (like a loss in the Caucuses) or encounter an unexpectedly tough new market entrant that’s generating a lot of buzz. Go with someone who will stick with you through for better or for worse, within limits.

4. Karma is a bitch: Sometimes its easier to take ethical or legal shortcuts, but the truth will eventually come out. And it will take a big bite out of your ass when it does. There are lots of business examples here:

• Enron and their “creative” accounting theories;
• Martha Stewart, who thought she’d save a few dollars thanks to insider trading, but ended up paying a lot more in fines and jail time;
• Marion Jones, who disgraced herself and her fans when she admitted to using steroids. She too will see the inside of a jail cell; and
• Facebook, whose founder Mark Zuckerberg arguably lied and stole from former friends and colleagues to develop his mini-Empire. Some of the negative publicity about Facebook’s advertising platform (Beacon) arguably stems from the fact that Mark Zuckerberg seems a bit slimy.

Note that I didn’t say “Good guys finish last”, because I’m not quite sure I believe that. But the truth has a nasty and persistent habit of being discovered no matter how clever or careful you think you are. Just ask Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.

3. Keep it simple, stupid! One of Obama’s great gifts is that he’s able to communicate controversial and complicated topics — race and poverty — via visual cues and oratorical flourishes. He doesn’t really ever delve into a 100-point plan. There’s no need to. His aim is to sell his vision of America. Great Internet companies like Google use a similar strategy. Both Obama and Google could obviously explain their core concepts in painful detail, but do you really care how Google generates so many relevant results in so little time? Or do you agree that Google’s minimalist home page conveys a simplicity that enhances its user experience. Great communicators — and great products - hide a lot of the complicated stuff , because they know that most consumers/voters suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder.

2. It’s great to be strong and visionary. But sometimes it’s okay to admit that you have weaknesses and doubts. It’s okay to be human. This is one that’s particularly easier said than done for me. A lot of people expect leaders to be emotionless robots. Winners execute exceptionally well no matter what the personal circumstance or obstacle. Displays of emotion are for the weak. But I think that the Hillary crying episode showed that the public resists leaders that appear inhuman and inflexible. In reviewing why people tend to be railing against Facebook all of a sudden, for example, Duncan Riley of TechCrunch explained that Mark Zuckerberg would “be better off relaxing a little more and being more open and honest; Facebook must reach a tipping point this year in growth and people will feel a lot better about supporting him if he was little less robotic, and more importantly more open.” Closed and robotic is out. Open and honest is in.

1. Charisma and “likability” matter, particularly when you want to be the top dog. Hillary is probably very annoyed that, although she has paid her dues, a much more charismatic male candidate is threatening her for the top spot. Although Obama is a lot less experienced than Hillary, voters are willing to focus more on his likability factor. All other things being equal, people like to see nice guys or women do well. In his Digg case study, for example, Nisan Gabbay argues that the Kevin Rose persona has a lot to do with Digg’s success. He explains: “I believe that Kevin Rose’s personality and public persona played a big part in Digg’s success. Initial users wanted to see Digg succeed because they wanted to see Kevin succeed. When Digg was raising its first VC round, some well-respected Internet investors felt that better products were about to be launched that would unseat Digg. However, we have learned that having a superior technical product is not necessarily the determining factor for success. Consumer Internet services are both an art and a science. The Kevin Rose persona was a big contributor to the “art” side of Digg that is impossible to replicate by competitors.”

To paraphrase Hillary’s evaluation of Obama, successful leadership is as much about poetry as it is about prose.

I must admit. I wasn’t so happy the first time that I saw “Mama Sarah” on CNN. After noting that getting to Mama Sarah’s remote village in Kenya was almost as difficult as parting the Red Sea (my words, not hers), the reporter explained: “When we arrived, Sarah Onyango Obama was waiting with a smile as she cut up corn maize preparing animal feed. As the chickens clucked and a rooster crowed, ‘Mama Sarah’ is as busy bringing in the crops as her grandson is trying to bring in the votes.”

In this case, a video really was worth 100.000 words. Couldn’t somebody have taken Mama Sarah to the beauty shop and gotten her a nice little pant suit? With $100 million raised for his election, Obama could have probably sent her a few hundred dollars to prepare for the interview. And Michelle Obama could have lent her those white pearls she’s always wearing.

Instead, there was Mama Sarah looking as if time had stood still and she was still back in 18th century Africa surrounded by her hungry chicken. As the CNN reporter explained: “The Obamas of Kenya still live as they have for decades, even though their most famous relative is in a hotly contested race to become the next president of the United States.”

I was hoping that the CNN report would be the end of the Mama Sarah story until I opened up a Spanish newspaper today and saw a two-page spread talking about how race could enter into US politics via Obama. Though the point of the article was that we should not descend into traditional, divisive racial politics, the accompanying picture was of Mama Sarah, though the story had hardly mentioned her. There was no picture of Obama. The picture of Mama Sarah apparently said it all.

There’s no doubt that Mama Sarah has a certain Harriet Tubman-esque poise and dignity that belies her underprivileged social status (Harriet Tubman was a runaway slave that helped freed hundreds of black slaves during the 1800s. She is viewed with great respect in the black community). But there is also no doubt that her image is more Oxfam than Vanity Fair.

Perhaps I suffer from some sort of post-colonial mindset (I’m pretty sure I do. How could I not?). I mean, my Jamaican grandparents all grew up on farms, and one of my fondest memories of my grandmother is when she killed her prized chicken and served it to my sister and me on one of our annual visits.

That being said, if I were running for President, I’m not sure that that personal image would be the one I would want circulated. And if I’m being 100% honest, the issue is that I can’t imagine Mama Sarah in the White House with European royals or foreign dignitaries. I don’t know if Obama would invite her in any case, but I suspect that she wouldn’t fit in.

But maybe that’s the point. My “slave-mentality” issues aside, there’s no doubt that the politicization of Mama Sarah can be politically dangerous for Obama. White voters might be willing to tolerate him, because he represents the ideal of a colorblind America. Obama is biracial, was educated at Harvard, and is more eloquent and inspirational than even the best white candidates like Hillary Clinton and John McCain. He is the American Dream writ large.

But on an equally symbolic level, Mama Sarah is a visual reminder of the complexity of race, the pervasiveness of racial differences and the often impermeable nexus between race and social status.

And someone wants Americans to remember that if they choose Obama, Mama Sarah — and all that she represents — comes as part of the deal.

I’m not saying that Obama has to hide Mama Sarah, but if I don’t know anything about his white grandmother (or even his white mother who raised him), why do I need to know so much about Mama Sarah? Why is this story — and these images in particular — so newsworthy?

Who the hell is circulating this story about Mama Sarah? And why is it that so many traditional media outlets seem to think that the Mama Sarah back-story is so important. A Google search for “Mama Sarah Obama” generates 32,600 stories in English and, more impressively, 34.500 in Spanish.

I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but I can’t help but remember the blog post that I wrote the other day noting that Karl Rove helped George Bush get elected Governor of Texas, beating a popular incumbent, by calling voters and insinuating that the Governor (a tough woman) hired lots of lesbians in her office. And then he helped George Bush beat John McCain by calling voters and insinuating that John McCain had fathered an illegitimate black baby.

Politicians — both Democrats and Republicans — will do anything to win, and they are not above inciting racist and homophobic fears.

The main Spanish newspaper, El Pais, is in agreement with this theory. In an article called “La Abuela y la Lágrima” (The Grandmother and the Tear Drop), the author posits that there are various groups that will do anything to guarantee that Obama loses — both Democrats in favor of Hillary and Republicans preparing for a general election. And they want to make sure that US voters get to know Mama Sarah, who speaks no English, is poor and has a third-world lifestyle.

White voters might be comfortable with Obama in the White House. But they might not be so happy imagining Mama Sarah and her clucking chickens there.

Let’s hope that they prove me wrong.

I was rewatching this video, as it’s one of my favorite performances of all time. And I was thinking that if you replace Jennifer Holliday with Hillary Clinton, and replaced Curtis (the love interest) for the dream of becoming President of the United States (or the American public), you’d understand Hillary’s Clinton’s emotional response when she realized that voters didn’t “love” her.

As Hillary/Effie puts: “Am I’m Telling You . . . I’m Not Going Nowhere . . . I’m Not Living Without You . . . I’m Staying, and You’re Gonna Love Me!”

Doesn’t Curtis (the love interest) look a little bit like Obama? Just a little?

Here are the full lyrics. Just try it. Instead of an unfaithful lover, insert the dream of becoming President of the United States or the American public. Take your pick.

———
And I am telling you
I’m not going.
You’re the best [man] I’ll ever know.
There’s no way I can ever go,
No, no, no, no way,
No, no, no, no way I’m livin’ without you.
I’m not livin’ without you.
I don’t want to be free.
I’m stayin’,
I’m stayin’,
And you, and you, you’re gonna love me.
Ooh, you’re gonna love me.

And I am telling you
I’m not going,
Even though the rough times are showing.
There’s just no way,
There’s no way.
We’re part of the same place.
We’re part of the same time.
We both share the same blood.
We both have the same mind.
And time and time we have so much to share,
No, no, no,
No, no, no,
I’m not wakin’ up tomorrow mornin’
And findin’ that there’s nobody there.
Darling, there’s no way,
No, no, no, no way I’m livin’ without you.
I’m not livin’ without you.
You see, there’s just no way,
There’s no way.

Tear down the mountains,
Yell, scream and shout.
You can say what you want,
I’m not walkin’ out.
Stop all the rivers,
Push, strike, and kill.
I’m not gonna leave you,
There’s no way I will.

And I am telling you
I’m not going.
You’re the best [man] I’ll ever know.
There’s no way I can ever, ever go,
No, no, no, no way,
No, no, no, no way I’m livin’ without you.
Oh, I’m not livin’ without you,
I’m not livin’ without you.
I don’t wanna be free.
I’m stayin’,
I’m stayin’,
And you, and you,
You’re gonna love me.
Oh, hey, you’re gonna love me,
Yes, ah, ooh, ooh, love me,
Ooh, ooh, ooh, love me,
Love me,
Love me,
Love me,
Love me.
You’re gonna love me.