If you see me in a suit it generally means one of two things: I am going to a wedding or I am invited to an event with Bill Clinton.

The work I have done for Kiva, both as a lender and a blogger, has gotten some attention. My Kiva diaries are among the more popular ones I write. A little while back I was interviewed by BBC World News as a lender. And most recently, I was invited to a private panel discussion for the release of Bill Clinton’s latest Book, GIVING: How Each of Us Can Change the World. I do not have a copy of this book as of yet so this is not a book review, though that might come. Instead I want to discuss the event and some of the individuals and organizations that were highlighted.  read more »

Mark Twain said there are lies, damn lies and statistics and his adage applies to unemployment measurement. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes six unemployment metrics monthly, each referred to in ascending order of inclusiveness of the unemployed as U-1, U-2, etc.

The measure reported by the media as the unemployment rate that severely undercounts the unemployed is referred to as U-3. The U-3 rate is obtained by dividing the narrowest definition of the unemployed by the work force.
The U-3 definition does not include whom the BLS calls discouraged and marginal workers, those who want a job but have given up the search because market conditions and personal experience indicate the process is futile.

U-6 Unemployment counts the marginal and discouraged plus those seeking full time employment but can only find part time work. The Federal Reserve tracks what it defines as the Augmented Unemployment rate, which I've read is equivalent to U-6 less part time workers. I couldn't find any Augmented Unemployment releases on the Fed site and despite major data inclusion differences, some bloggers have used U-6 and the Fed's stat interchangeably.  read more »

Last night was the beginning of a wonderful event in politics.... "The fake debates".

As I watched last night a couple of things came to mind.

1. Clinton, Obama, and Biden were for the most part strong throughout the process.

2. I want Mike Gravel at every debate and he must get more questions and air time. Then get his own show and I would watch.

3. John Edwards looked so pretty last night I thought he was posing for GQ not running for President. Not to mention he long pause as he looked toward God when they asked who is moral leader was. I though he was expecting God to come down and say" Oh that is me Brain, John looks up to me."

4. Bill Ricardson did a poor job overall. Too much hand movement and body movement. At times long winded and overextending his time. He needs to fine tune for the next debate.

5. Why were people in the audience fanning themselves with their programs? You would think a large great college like that would have the AC on?

6. If anyone gained or lost undecided people it would look like this for each......

1. Gravel: gained.... Why well if he went from 2 votes to 4 he still gets my vote as most entertaining and needs a position in the next administration anyway.  read more »

The Washigton Post reported yesterday that Hillary Clinton is fighting tooth and nail to keep her husband's impeachment out of any discussions involving her presidential bid :

Clinton Fights to Keep Impeachment Taboo - washingtonpost.com:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has a new commandment for the 2008 presidential field: Thou shalt not mention anything related to the impeachment of her husband.

With a swift response to attacks from a former supporter last week, advisers to the New York Democrat offered a glimpse of their strategy for handling one of the most awkward chapters of her biography. They declared her husband's impeachment in 1998 -- or, more accurately, the embarrassing personal behavior that led to it -- taboo, putting her rivals on notice and all but daring other Democrats to mention the ordeal again.

Funny because at the nail salon, the republican feminist lady that was getting a french manicure was saying that it did matter to her.

A lot.  read more »

An interesting bit of speculation over at TPM Café:

Some top Democrats say that if Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency, which would vacate her Senate seat, they'd like to see New York Governor Eliot Spitzer appoint another Clinton to take her place -- Bill Clinton. The Examiner reports that under this scenario, New York law would dictate that Bill stay in his wife's Senate seat until 2010, at which point a special election would be held for the seat.

Um. Horse. Cart. Proper order.

In the - to me unlikely and eminently undesirable, but let's entertain the thought - event that the dynastic succession to the White House works out and America continues down the path of monarchy, it would make sense to stay in the same rut and hand the Senate seat to the husband of the departing incumbent. Thing is, Governor Spitzer - who would be making the choice - would probably come under intense pressure to nominate a black or Latino replacement (as TPM notes), or more likely a woman. That would probably lead to H. Carl McCall or David Paterson, or maybe - one can dream - Liz Krueger.  read more »