DISQUS

Good on you Matt - this is really wonderful! The Seattle PI also has a search tool for firms specific to the Pacific NW. I can't link straight to it, but click here and look for the dropdown a little ways down the page under the title "PACIFIC NW VENTURE CAPITAL AND PRIVATE EQUITY FIRMS" I think it lists quite a few that are noteworthy enough for you to add, but it certainly lacks the richness of your work here (no deep bio info, for example). Thanks again for your work on this - the community appreciates it!

Keep them coming Fred - somehow, they just seem more appropriate to absorb and noodle on than to talk about.

Iron. It's tactile and supremely satisfying. Watching wrinkles disappear gives me a nice sense of having accomplished something. I need loud music or mindless TV on if I'm trying to clear my thoughts, or else it becomes meditative & I stew while I'm doing it. If I'm trying to think through a problem though, silent ironing is perfect. Maybe it helps that I don't bother ironing most of the time, so it doesn't feel like a chore - it's a trick I can pull out only when I really need it.

My previous employer named them after tragedies or disasters due to the error of man (e.g., Titanic, Tambora, Kursk, Valdez, Hindenburg, Challenger, etc.). Looking back, I should have seen this as an early warning sign...

Well said, Michael. As a recent Clinton-turned-Obama supporter thanks to Bill supremely disappointing me, I have seen that it's difficult to challenge her fairly when her gender makes even her ideas and platform beyond reproach. Tom, as for Obama's status as "The One" - I'd like to share part of what I wrote to Paul Krugman today in response to what I felt was his inaccurate interpretation of this phenomenon. And although I am not young enough to speak for them, I'd guess this is part of why Gen Y is mobilizing for him too: "I am sure that the cult of personality issue may exist for some, but I would offer this juxtaposition. The Clintons were a cult of personality, at least for people like me. I loved the IDEA of Bill, and the legacy of Bill, and the good times of peace and prosperity that came along with Bill... and I held out hope that he'd rubbed off on Hillary. Even if I didn't find her particularly engaging or inspiring, I was engaged and inspired by the idea of More Clinton Times. By contrast, Obama is not all about Obama, he's all about ME. We are the ones who are important, we are the ones who will take responsibility... we are the ones that matter in this race, not him. He's The Great Facilitator, if you will... a conduit for us to affect change for ourselves. So last year WE were Time's person of the year - this year, WE get to be president. The cult of personality is our infatuation with our OWN ego. Yes there are dangers associated with this as well, but to the extent that it (a) engages the populous in government again and (b) holds politicians accountable to us, it's a good thing.

As a recently undecided voter, I got frustrated with the moderators' and networks' ideas of what a debate should be and finally went to educate myself. For months I'd heard that on policy, Obama and Clinton were virtually indistinguishable. My goodness, I now beg to differ!

Their goals are similar, but the means to the end for each of them reveals a critical ideological difference - whether enduring change can be found by treating the symptom vs. the cause.

Take the example of healthcare. The end state for both of them is broad, quality coverage for all Americans. But Clinton's plan mandates coverage for everyone. Obama believes that people are rational, and that if his policy clears the path for them, they will act in their own self interests - i.e., if he makes insurance affordable, they will buy it. It's a matter of behavioral economics, and it runs through all of his policies - if you create a system that removes obstacles and rewards people for acting in their own self interests, they will. Think of it like this - I'm pro-choice, but there's still a fundamental difference in legislation that either (a) increases funding for abortions or (b) increases funding for birth control & sex ed. One is a band-aid, the other creates lasting behavioral change (and is also harder to dismantle in 4 or 8 years).

Now, tell me how he's going to get this across to the average American in the current debate format, and I'll be happy to advocate for more debates (even if it does get free airtime for Hillary). It’s unfortunate that the difference between them is relatively nuanced and complex, particularly for the casual voter, but the difference IS there, and it's an important one. It's also a critical difference in being able to pull in independents and centrist Republicans - the nanny-state approach is a turn-off, even for moderates.

Oh, and @ Jeff, you're absolutely right about most Republicans' reaction to Clinton. As a recent transplant to the west coast from the "reddest" part of southwest Missouri (Ashcroft country), I could give you hours of insight into the thinking of true R's in a bellweather state. Clinton is their only hope for uniting their own party in November. I've had no less than 15 family members, all of whom are disappointed in all Republican options to-date, tell me how much they're looking forward to voting against Hillary - so much so that they voted FOR her on Tuesday. The irrational groundswell of venom toward the Clintons is hard to truly comprehend unless you've lived with it. Not a singular reason to choose Obama over Clinton, but with two qualified candidates, it’s not something we should ignore either.