Time Magazine Rates Top 100 Influential

Time Magazine likes to rank. They rank events, books, people, and more. This past week they ranked the top 100 most influential. Sadly, I failed to make the list...again. None the less there are several interesting characters that made the list and it makes for interesting reading.

The list is too long to go into here, so pick up the magazine or visit the website. Here's a quick preview of the categories and notables:

Leaders and Revolutionaries

The Dalai Lama, Vladimir Putin, and the US Presidential candidates lead the list. What was funny to me about the list is that virtually all of these "revolutionaires" are anything but revolutionary. They tend to be very establishment indeed.

Heroes and Pioneers

Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie (no, I'm not joking), Oprah Winfrey, Oscar Pistorius lead this list. Many meet Hollywood's odd criteria of heroic, but Oscar is definitely worthy for the list. I do believe Oprah is a pioneer and has revolutionized media.

Scientists and Thinkers

Michael Bloomberg, Craig Venter, and Jill Bolte Taylor were the top three. I actually liked the section better than mosts. Time actually looked for serious thinkers and not merely the easiest names to draw from. Sure, they had their politically correct choices, but there were also some heady people on this list.

Artists and Entertainers

Lorne Michaels, Miley Cyrus, and Robert Downey, Jr. lead this list. I found this disappointing. Downey has largely been a disaster for years -- a brilliant and talented disaster -- but a disaster none the less. Lorne Michaels of Saturday Night Live has stumbled on a good year with the elections -- his first in years (if not decades), but the 100 most influential? Right.

Builders and Titans

Indra Nooyi, Ali al-Naimi, and Rupert Murdoch are the tops of this list and many on here (Murdoch is an exception) are people you haven't heard of before. Why? According to Time and other major media, the US has begun to decline in influence.

Check out the list, it is interesting reading. I would love to hear from others who have views on this list.

According to recent surveys on marketing, most advertising attracts sellers (others who want you to buy more ads) and not buyers. Do you want to know why? Email info@HoustonBusinessShow.com and put "marketing audio" in the subject line and we will get it to you.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

See How They Run: Democratic Candidates Won't Debate on Fox

Rumor has it that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (photo)are joining John Edwards in a boycott against Fox News in that network's upcoming debate, according to the Huffington Post. The candidates argue that Fox News is too biased and anti-Democrat and they don't want to legitimize its views by participating in the forum. I first learned about Edwards' decision about a week ago and was some what offended by the idea. However, the more I think about it, I have to respect all of these candidates for sticking to their convictions, regardless of how wrong those beliefs may be.

If conservative candidates had done the same thing to CNN many years ago, the media would not be nearly as polarized as it is today, in my opinion. Americans couldn't expect the Democrats to boycott that network 20 years ago, it was the Republicans who were getting abused. They obediently took their regular beatings rather than holding the network accountable. These leading Democrats are doing just that when it comes to Fox.

There is, however, a difference in my opinion. I honestly don't believe that Fox's treatment of the news is biased. The editorial departments clearly lean to the Right, but the news itself really is fair and balanced. A typical Fox story will point out truths that neither side wants to hear. In my memory Fox has also been fair in its treatment of candidates during debates, which weakens the arguments of these Democrats about whether they should participate.

With these leading Democrats firing this salvo, the question is, how should Fox respond? If I were in charge I would move full speed ahead towards having a debate among the Democrats willing to participate. This would do several things:

* It would likely cause one or two of these major candidates to blink. The thought of one of their opponents -- even a minor one -- getting that kind of uninterrupted exposure, would be more than they can handle.

* The majority of Fox viewers consider themselves independent, a more moderate Democrat could have an excellent opportunity to pick up some key votes. Hillary Clinton has heavily marketed herself as such a Democrat and would be the must likely to suffer from such a boycott.

* I believe this could possibly move the Democratic party towards the much neglected center. Candidates who are largely ignored by the media whose agenda is established by the Democratic party (most media, in my opinion) would have an opportunity to voice their views to an audience that hasn't heard such perspectives.

* It would put the power of the candidates at check. If Fox News doesn't budge, these candidates likely will. Those candidates who don't will likely regret it later.

There are checks and balances for every branch of government. Although I disagree with the Democrats about the network they want to boycott, I'm impressed that they are holding this "fourth branch" of government accountable.

See How They Run: How Important is Money in a Presidential Campaign?

Clearly money is important, but could it be over rated? Forbes.com seems to think so in a recent article at its website. The article, entitled "Money Doesn't Win Presidential Elections," is built on several assumptions:

1) A truly wide open field. With so many candidates starting this early, there is plenty of opportunity for other players to come onto the scene and change the landscape.

2) The role of the Internet changes everything. The web has become a great tool for raising money and its role should expand in the future. Many who become major fundraisers on the web will not attract people or money in the "real world," however, having an affect on the actual election.

3) Early primaries are forcing candidates to raise money at record levels, especially California's move to February 5th. This state will require big money in order to reach this large population.

4) Faltering front-runners. Candidates that are bringing in the cash and showing strong numbers today could be an after thought before 2007 comes to a close. As candidates start campaigning earlier, more money will come in quicker, having an impact on the previous records. Never have so many people been running for office so early, in the history of the Republic. This cannot help but impact the flow of dollars. The timing of the arrival of those dollars, in particular.

When I think of the power of money, I think of Phil Gramm's failed Presidential campaign of 1996 which brought in a great deal of money and early buzz, but found itself a mere after thought in the end. Money is important, just ask both the candidates with it and those who wish they had it. But money alone doesn't mean instant success in the turbulent world of politics.

Is Katie Couric a Hypocrite?

Katie Couric (photo) went through the terrible drama of losing a loved one -- her husband -- to cancer. All of us were in awe of her personal courage and wished her and her kids well through the process. Recently Elizabeth Edwards announced that her cancer is back and is not curable. The best she can hope for is to keep it at bay through various treatments.

Katie Couric interviewed Elizabeth and her Presidential contender husband, John, recently on the struggle of running for office while battling cancer. Katie told the candidate and wife that "family goes first and then work" and with that in mind, how can a candidacy for the Presidency be explained or justified. Mr. and Mrs. Edwards were shocked, mainly because the question was rude and, even more so, who it came from. Katie Couric, when her husband was diagnosed and fighting for his life, worked the very busy schedule of a professional journalist. Such individuals work 50 or 60 hours a week (and even more), and she appeared to not miss a beat.

As I indicated earlier, America supported Couric's decision as courageous. I believe it was during this time that the Today Show became unbeatable in the ratings war. So for her to be harsh to the Edwards who are choosing to fight their battle in this very personal way, it seemed inappropriate. America concluded that the battle that Katie's family had against cancer was very personal. I believe Americans feel the same about the Edwards. Some families might want to buckle down, be close, and fight it privately. Others may want to go on with their lives, while they have their lives, with gusto. This is the approach the Edwards' family is bravely taking. I believe everyone is shocked by Katie's response.

People are speculating as to why Couric was so harsh. Some say it was lashing out because of her continued rating problems, others believe it was from the deep convictions she developed because of her own personal experience, and others still believe she was merely being a tough journalist. If it is the latter, it didn't work. The Edwards quickly entered into the defensive mode and, in my opinion, the quality of the interview declined. She could have accomplished so much more from a position of empathy, rather than being holier than thou.

I'm no fan of the Edwards when it comes to their political beliefs, but I'm impressed with their courage and I commend them and others for the very personal way they are fighting this battle.

See How They Run: The Truth Behind Giuliani and McCain as Front Runners

The front runners for the GOP nomination for President are former mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani (see photo) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Giuliani has the lead, which seems to be widening daily. The truth is, neither one of these gentlemen will likely be on the top of the ticket by November 2008 and if they are, Republicans will probably lose.

The GOP has always treated the conservative wing of its party as a loud and obnoxious group that tries to wield too much influence. The truth of the matter is, the conservatives are the tail that wag the dog. Every candidate that has successfully obtained the GOP nomination since Ronald Reagan has run as a strong conservative. Bob Dole was the only one the conservatives seriously doubted and he lost when it mattered in November of 1996. The only other Republican to lose since than was George H.W. Bush for reelection. He convinced Republicans that Reagan had converted him to a true believer by 1988 , but supported a tax increase that was philosophical anathema to conservatives and poison to the economy. Republicans can't get away with statements such as "read my lips, no new taxes" and pass a significant tax increase once in power, just ask the first Bush.

So how does one explain the surveys that have Giuliani and McCain winning by a huge margin among GOP voters? There are several reasons for this:

* Many people vote in the primary, but do nothing in the Fall. Only the conservatives activists, as a whole, get people to the polls for the GOP in November.

* It is really early in the race and both of these candidates carry messages and histories that resonate with conservative voters. McCain is, in spite of how much I disagree with him on many of his views, a war hero and he is largely right when it comes to Iraq. Meanwhile, Giuliani was amazing during 9/11 2001 and won every one's heart as the nation's mayor. But mayor and President are two different things and he doesn't hold positions on social or even economic issues that lines up with the party faithful. However, Americans as a whole are solidly behind winning the war in Iraq and both of these candidates have taken the most hard line positions on that issue.

In the end these candidates positions on social issues and taxes will likely come back to haunt them. I am just hoping that happens before Republicans nominate one of them.

See How They Run: The First in a Series on the 2008 Elections

There are few things that have a bigger impact on a business's bottom line than government. In fact, government is a huge shareholder in virtually every business that takes huge amounts of money without helping a company's performance and actually undermines their productivity through excessive regulations and licensure laws (ask me how I really feel). Therefore, being informed about who is running is crucial in order to make sure that the people that are chosen do as little damage as possible. So over the next two years (can you believe it) I intend to do several articles on some of the dynamics of the race, discuss who is running, and in a very bold move describe very closely the next president even before the first primaries are held. In fact, you should be able to guess who that candidate will be by my description (just wait, I think it will be impressive).

In the posts on this subject that come I will discuss:

* Why they are running so early.

* Do candidates getting started this early weaken sitting incumbants?

* What role race, gender, and religion will play in the election.

* Who each of the candidates are (in both parties) and what their chances of winning.

* The role the Internet will play in these elections (like TV, a largely new media in 1960 destroyed Richard Nixon; the Web is knocking off candidates with tongues that slip and other behaviors).

I'm sure over time that several other items will come up and I would love to hear from others on other issues I should cover. With the possibility of the election of a woman, an African American, Hispanic, Mormon, and who knows what else I am missing, 2008 promises to be a very interesting year indeed. And even if we elect another white guy again this election will be historic because we will not have had an incumbant President or Vice President on the ballot in any Primary. We haven't seen that since 1928.

Senator Joe Biden, Behaving Badly

Senator Joe Biden launched his very weak bid for the Presidential race of 08 with a splash and now he might drown in it. The senator from the small state of Delaware, with very little name ID, and even less hope of winning, appearantly wanted to make a big impression early on his campaign. Boy, did he ever.

Biden (D-DE) has served in the Senate for decades and had a reputation of being liked and intelligent (also extremely liberal), so when he described opponent Barack Obama (D-IL) as "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" to run for president, he raised more than a few eyebrows. I'm sure if he were a Republican, he not only would have been force to get out of the race, he would probably have to give up his seat in the Senate. It is just the way it is, I assume.

I'm sure he is sending notes of apology to Jessee Jackson, Al Sharpton and all the other blacks who have tried running for President in the past and is explaining how he "didn't mean it that way." I'm dying to actually hear an explanation of what he did mean. Biden didn't have much of a chance anyway, but this will likely finish him off as a serious contender in '08 (Democrats have short memories when it comes to their own, Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia (photo) was a member of the Ku Klux Klan).

The question is, now, why did he do it?

* Was it a desperate attempt to get headlines for a campaign that was lagging far behind from the start?

* Was it a back handed compliment to the Junior Senator from Illinois?

* Was it a pronouncement of frustration because Obama came from no where just a few years ago and is now the biggest star of his party? Meanwhile, Biden has been in the Senate for 35 years (making me 10 at the time he got there and making me feel very young). I think anyone could be jealous of a new comers "rock star" status being acquired in such a short period of time (OBama is my age and is in his first year in the Senate). This last choice would be my guess.

In the end, Biden is dismissing Obama as just another empty suit that is biting off more than he can chew. Taking such an approach with someone so popular in his party, makes Biden look like the poster child of sour grapes.