Happened to come across  Hertz Corporation v. Friend arguments in US Supreme court, below is the court transcript:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1107.pdf

Putting some of my thoughts, which happen to be more in favor of  Mr. Schneider arguments that “Headquarter” should just not be considered as “Principal place of business”

First of all congress purposefully chose not to use the term “Headquarter” instead used “Principal place of business”, reason being they wanted to emphasize that the citizenship of a company should be of the state where it has a huge presence and this decision should be left to Judges in future (50 yrs from then) as they will be in a better position to decide based on circumstances of the case at the time.

Secondly, the cost and ambiguity associate with not very clear definition of “Principal place of business” is justified but it does not in any way support the argument that Headquarter should be the principal place of business. However there are more convincing arguments against it.

In practice, the plaintiff who is a common man usually just won’t file a law suit on big corporations by himself searching records on internet, but most likely he will first consult lawyers or law firms, and for lawyers predicting the “Principal place of business” may not be very tough or resource consuming.

Secondly, the “Local Bias” will be more prevalent and jury will be more biased towards a corporation headquartered in their community. Because historically headquarters of most of the big corporations is where the founders first started the business, and usually it is their home state. And people feel a sense of pride in having a big corporation or CEO from their place. Also many time most of the corporations have good relations with the community they are headquartered in, as many of them donate for charity or local causes. And since the majority of the business may not be in the same place as headquarter, it would be difficult for local people to understand any malpractice or consumer inconvenience the company actually causing. Given the above scenarios, if the plaintiff is from the place where corporation is headquartered, his/her preferences would be to have the case under Federal court, as the chances of fair trail in federal court would be more.

However if the plaintiff is from a place where Corporation actually sell majority of the products and has its most consumers, then the chances of fair trail are more if the case is in Local (state) court, since local people would understand the corporations practices better from the consumers point of view.

In another argument, since in last 50 years there have been very few cases (I am assuming based on the arguments from Mr. Srinivasan) where the jurisdiction had been challenged at later stage, it does not appear to be a big problem, which would call for making “Headquarter” as the “Principal place of Business”, the reasons for failure of the correct jurisdictions selection at earlier stage may be many other which may be completely irrelevant to the argument of making “Headquarter” as the “Principal place of business” and since reasons are not at all presented by Petitioner, we cannot consider these cases as the supporting reasons for this argument. Moreover, if the “Principal place of Business” would be made as “Headquarters” by Supreme Court then there will be lot of question marks on the validity of already decided cases which may be too many in numbers. And would cost more money and resources to reopen and rerun.

I believe the emphasis of a justice system has to be more on fair trail than saving costs and just simplicity.

Coming to why New Jersey should not be regarded as the Principal place of Business for Hertz, I think we should look into what exactly business in this context means. Does the business means just thought process, decisions or the real and actual execution? Business may originate from a thought and realization of a new opportunity, but what makes it a real success is how it is executed and if it has been directed on the right target customers.

For how it is executed the most important factor is where it is executed because all your presentation budget and resources to sell your product (workforce, advertising, sales, marketing cost) is decided accordingly, based on the likes, preferences and culture of the target customers and their territory.

And obviously business focus is mainly put into places from where it would be getting the most return from. For e.g., Wal-mart may be headquartered in Arkansas, but most of their executives, sale and marketing plan would be focused on Texas, their main success and sources of capital depends on how they execute their business in Texas. For e.g. any major natural catastrophe or new Wal-mart unfavorable laws particularly in Texas would affect the Wal-mart most, although the business might be booming in Arkansas. So Texas should be considered the “Principal place of business”, doesn’t matter if Wal-mart actually started or “Headquartered” in Arkansas. Similarly given the current circumstances Hertz business would actually be effected the most by California than any other state in US.

Moreover, Business cannot be measured in terms of “margin per capita” most of the successful business are all about the volume and not margin, i.e. how many payable customers the corporations can add; corporations focus more on increasing their customers as usually the margin is similar from all the customers. Given that California has the most number of people and most of them have the good buying power, most of the corporations focus their businesses in California. And thus it should not be any surprise why many companies can be considered to have “Principal place of Business” in California.

Secondly, we can draw parallel from wars, the battle field would be considered as the “Principal place of any war” not the A/C rooms where the top General would be sitting and making strategy.

Also the Principal place of business may change from time to time based on where the favorable conditions are and most of the focus of the corporation would shift there. Similar to the way “Principle battle field” is slowly shifting to Afghanistan from Iraq now.

Conclusively, by constraining the “Principal place of Business” to “Headquarter” we may end up creating room for loopholes in future which would prevent fair trials. Since the shape and structure of Corporations are dynamic and their products for the Society are ever-changing, so the scope of Laws and its interpretation has to be dynamic and left to common sense as per the changing time and circumstances, to help trials to be more fair.

Advertisements

Health care problem has become a cancer for the current society. It is something that is eating up the hard work of the majority of the people in terms of huge insurance premium, but returning nothing in turn.

Is the problem really a big? or it is just a hype?

Well by looking into the statistic we can immediately say it is one of the biggest problem, especially for a society in an advanced country like US.

Around 60% of the Bankruptcies happen in US because someone got ill in the family, not only this, out of these  60% bankrupt families, 75% had health insurance! That means out of every 100 bankrupt families 45 had been in complete insured state of mind that they are completely protected, same state as you and me now!

It means even though you have proper insurance coverage, there is 45% chance that you will be bankrupt in case if someone in your family gets majorly ill. So better come out of that pseudo comfort zone of yours! where health care problem is only of those people mentioned in newspaper or TV. It can very well happen to you at anytime!

Let us try to analyze why and how the problem started, because to solve any problem we must first get to its roots.

Assume there is a town where people do not buy health insurance as health care cost is not much. Doctors make a little more than average income and they are more concerned about patients health than making money. Moreover since people do not fall sick that much the supply and demand is balanced, which keeps check on the cost.

Now one day Mr Ronald comes to town with a wonderful insurance scheme, which has incentive for both doctors and patients. Mr Ronald tells patients buy my policies and I will take care of most of your cost and you can get even very expensive care for free under my insurance coverage. At the same time Mr Ronald says to doctors, you can ask more to the patients since most of them are covered under insurance schemes, insurance company would pay you how much ever you ask for. Obviously doctors will start to ask for more and insurance companies will start to pay them what they ask for.

Now when a normal person who got sick after a long time and had no idea about the insurance, had a real tough time paying to doctors to get the care he needed, the story of his suffering traveled really fast and obviously generated insecurity and fear among the listeners or readers. Now all the healthy and normal persons out of fear started to rush for insurance from Mr Ronald.

And Mr Ronald, now makes tons of more money than he has to spend out. Since he has successfully made a not so useful product, which was not at all need, a necessity of life of all the people in town, how? by inflating the cost of doctors, by giving doctors good incentive, and generating fear among residents of town that they can not afford health care without his coverage.

Now, not only this, once in the town someone sues a doctor for ignorance and jury awards millions of dollars to the victim of insurance. Wow a perfect opportunity for Mr Ronald, make insurance a necessary evil for even doctors/hospitals too to cover themselves against the emotional wrath of jury! In turn doctors would put the new premium on patients bills. Result, further raise in the health care cost. Which, Mr Ronald puts back on residents of the town in terms of higher premium and prays to have few more such ignorance cases on doctors! Not only this Mr Ronald have now devised other ways to save money by denying needy people, by making them sign certain one sided agreements during purchase of policy!

I am not a good story teller, but I suppose you got some idea on how insurance became necessity of the people. Mr Ronald became necessity provider and started to put one sided contracts. However another town, where Mr Ronald did not visit, is still happy and people are able to afford quality health care without needing the insurance.

Now, let us see the whole system of the first town from top. Everyone in the town, including doctors is paying to Mr Ronald a premium amount – a hard earned money. Mr Ronald keeps it in his safe. A small amount of people (very small % of total population) come and ask Mr Ronald to pay for them, so Mr Ronald takes out a small part from his safe to pay for those people. Now in this whole cycle who is actually working? People are working, Doctors are working, but who is getting rich? – Mr Ronald! who never works. Isn’t it strange?… Well lot of people would argue rich people don’t work, and yes it is true, others work for them.

Now Mr Ronald goes to other towns and ultimately covers the whole country and result! … you know.

Who is really responsible for all this? Well, mainly the residents of the town, of the the country, for being ignorant, for  getting enticed by Mr Ronald’s  persistent persuasion, for being fearful of their own imagination of bad and for not being united.

What could be the solution? throw Mr Ronald out? impeach him in court for designing such an ill willed system, where he takes away tons of money from hard working people and in turn not returning any real value to them? Well now its too late Mr Ronald is too powerful as he has already worked with lawmakers to protect himself.

So whats the solution? Well, work together! form a cooperative – a non profit cooperative. A system which would take your money not away from you but would reserve it for you, something similar to what I suggested in my last post – Insurance – An Engine to Suck money for no real work.

Or, ask your selected representatives to form and initially fund a public health insurance, to keep check on the premium that Mr Ronald demands.

Since Mr Ronald is taking in approx 100,000 and giving out only 1000 and keeping remaining 99,000 in his pocket, but the public health insurance, eventually, over the time would effectively take only 1000 from the people. So instead of paying $500 a month you would pay only $5 a month in few years for the same quality care. And you would be sure that you are not dependent on Mr Ronald for your health care. This will also make Mr Ronald to come close to 1000 in terms of money taken in from the people, due to healthy competition in market.

Note: I recently read, Obama is actually trying to form public health insurance, which is an excellent idea. However, in long run it may become inefficient, to counter this inefficiency he should in parallel encourage and give incentive to non-profit organization to enter into the health insurance business.

Other thoughts?


I usually believe in things which are simple and logical. This makes me feel more connected to nature.
Looking into the history of America it looks to have run in a more logical way then most of the other countries and the results are well known. Well last few years have been exceptions.

One thing that always intrigued me is the notion of Insurance. Insurance does not really produce any tangible product or goods. Then why should people pay for it to someone who has worked nothing in real sense.

The insurances are valuable to make people feel a sense of security but since there is no real effort required in giving insurance it does not justify private companies owned by few people making so much money out of it, just because they already have a big pool of money and they know how to play on peoples fear.

If you look at it from high level insurance companies are making money by convincing people that things can go wrong and selling something that does not exist in reality. Moreover during any catastrophic event these companies declare bankruptcies or demand bailout. And ultimate looser in any case are the general public.

This can very well be taken care by government either directly by means of automated computer system or indirectly by encouraging and supporting Non-profit organizations to venture into this field. I think later would be more appropriate.

If you add up the total amount of money the insurance companies have made so far it would always be more than they have paid out the people when in need. Because ultimately what insurance companies do is collect premium money from large number of people and give a part of it to few who claim and the remaining they pay to its shareholders or owners. In the entire process there is no value produced.

SUMMARY – Insurance is an engine which by doing no real work sucks the money out of masses and put it in few peoples pocket.

PROPOSAL – Engine like this should be encouraged to be run by non-profit organizations.

Why not to let the insurance be mainly run as a cooperative or as non-profit organization to help people keep most of their hard earned money to themselves.

Let us take a real life example:

I have paid around $3000 premium for car insurance in last 3 yrs and I have never claimed anything, what have I got in return? Nothing!…

Out of this $3000 may be around $100 is used to pay to those people who had claimed, around $50 to pay the salary of the employees and for administrative work and $1000 for Sales. Remaining around $850 has gone to few people’s pocket and tax. This certainly doesn’t look reasonable or right. Ideally most of $850 should have come back to me.

Instead let us imagine there is a new company Cooperative Insurance Of America (CIOA), which is backed by Govt. promise of fund supply if needed or initial money pool.

It’s Vision – let people have peace of mind and most of their hard earned money to themselves.

It’s Mission – it goes to market with a new Insurance plan, which is more of an investment than just premium payments.

Following rules/guidelines apply:
1) CIOA works and pays to its employee and executives as good as or better than the other Insurance companies in the market, to remain very competitive.
2) It has the insurance packages similar to other companies in the market and it evaluates, negotiates and sets the premium exactly as other insurance companies in the market do.
– Optionally CIOA has to produce certain preset results.
3) The net profit before tax of the CIOA is put into investments (community development, other businesses etc) on behalf of premium payers. So the remaining $850 and later on much more (as the people find it more reasonable the sales expenditure $1000 will go down drastically) as shown in above example, will show back into my account with CIOA
4) There would be set of policies and other tax conditions (to prevent loss and abuses) as to when the premium payers can cash their investment plans – I have worked out some details if anyone interested.

So, what am I gaining as an individual? – I know my money is not going into pocket of some already very rich guy. I feel that I am helping a system which is build to take away my and others security concern for bad times, and in turn we are helping each other and our community.

What is CIOA gaining – I and most of us would certainly prefer to buy insurance from CIOA, so it’s gaining business, it can employ more and more people as needed. It serves as a perfect example of Govt. initiative to help community compete with fake businesses which do not produce any tangible value.

I hope this gives a gist of what I am trying to say here. To really make this happen, we need – few volunteers who want to do something for community and a little Govt. backing and loan.


I had been thinking of writing this for long time, but did not get motivation to do so. Then yesterday the decision of Jerry to step down kind of compelled me to put on my thoughts on to the web.

Well in short I would say Jerry is the right CEO for the Yahoo! and his decision to step down is unfortunate. Seems like the main reason for stepping down is that he messed up with Microsoft deal (of which I really favored) but because of one bad decision you took in past doesn’t mean you should take another bad decision.

I was an Yahoo! employee few years back, after that started my own startup and at the same time have been in many companies to continue pay bills till things pick up.

My experience says Yahoo! has a really good technological platform, it has a very high visibility on internet – it’s still number one portal in terms of number of hits, it has really good products to continue making people visit it – such as, frontpage, mail, search, finance, games, personal, answers etc etc.

But what it mainly lacks is – the will power to succeed and moral of the employees to drive the company to the top again. The main reason has been the upper middle and the mid middle management layer (all those VPs, directors, Sr. Managers etc). Leaving few, most of them act as parasite for Yahoo! and looking at the reason why – most of them are incompetent, sort sighted and their only goal is to expand their team so that their resume would look good. They hardly care about the company or where it is heading.

Result, the innovative minds in the company get frustrated – no one likes to work under idiots or selfish management.

Secondly, Yahoo! listen to wrong people and has stopped working based on common sense. I have bunch of friends who work in data mining team, and when I listen to their talks I wonder does Yahoo! take its users’ as computers or real people? because they make decisions just based on data-mining results and no common sense is ever involved. A very typical example is http://search.yahoo.com/ on opening that page my first response usually is – is there something wrong with this page? and yes there is, they can keep their logo at the top of search box, as all other search engines do, but no, they won’t because their data mining says otherwise and they want to be different.

Third, Yahoo! copies the products but at the same time wants to be different instead of being better, and this is sheer foolishness. For e.g., they came up with Panama – a product which was to be a next version of Overture and a copy of Googles’s adwords. They did copy from Google and instead of making it better than Google they just made it different – and output – people find it extremely difficult to use and confusing, I myself tried to signup and use it for my websites but I had to give up in frustration.  What is wrong with Yahoo? instead of hiring 100s of PhDs and MBAs paying them 150K or more without any result, why not to hire 1 good product manager and a team of real testers and a team which would carry out usability test with real users.

Fourth, I think Yahoo! sowed the seed of downfall the day it started to propagate the concept of leadership in the company. Result, everyone prefer to be a leader in Yahoo! by stepping on each other, because in Yahoo! leadership comes without accountability and reasons, this promotes dirty politics. If I am bossy and if I can somehow increase my team size I will be considered as leader. If I can show you down in a meeting or I can increase my voice, I will be more visible. Doesn’t matter what I output or where my team is heading or even if I am a complete moron.

Instead if Yahoo! start to focus more on concept of innovation, concept of reasons and accountability and towards an environment where people don’t want to be on top of each other instead they would like to compete to get new innovative products out in the market and to get more revenue-in for the company. Yahoo! should promote the culture where team member or a team would not feel to be loosing something in helping another team member or team. If you have problems doing it, go to Google and Microsoft, observe them and come back with similar plannings.

Fifth, and more importantly, Yahoo! should monetize its products, which it can very well do. Yes, Mail! it is a huge giant! and a very good platform to promote search. Also monetize it by showing the keywords targeted ads, as Google does on gmail. I have many times asked this question to my friends in Yahoo! and answer I get is – Yahoo!s legal team says its privacy violation!!! – what the heck! fire such legal team and hire or borrow the legal team from Google.

Improve your search, I saw few days back Yahoo! coming out with the Search Monkey, to be very frank it again looks like making monkey out of yourself. Yahoo! search is bad and not as good as Google not because they do not present results in a proper way, it is because they do not have the proper result in their indexing servers. Their intent-based classification and keywords indexing and crawling is not that smart. They should focus on making it better. [I have designed few simple algos for this, may be will implement them once I have some free time and sell to Yahoo! or MSN 😉 ], but the point is if they have just 2-3 guys with common-sense in a decision making position then they can easily improve their search. And if one seriously wants some pointers – message me.

Increase the login expiry time on cookies, this is an out-of-the-way comment, but it’s really needed and can reduce the frustration of lot of old yahoo users who have migrated to their own laptop or PCs from cybercafe PCs.

Look into ways to monetize, Answers.yahoo.com, as very intended users visit these pages. Show ads here not as advertisement but as a help to users to find the needed product as per their intent.

Start your auctions.yahoo again and this time be tough on spammers and scammers, make the listings paid. Ebay is making sellers bleed and frustrate, this is the right time to hit this market, before Amazon eats it all.

Acquire, WordPress.com it will help create good buzz for yahoo among bloggers when needed, and can greatly help yahoo promote search among these influencers (bloggers) on the internet …

Look into engaging the users on front page a little more. I have thought of one feature which a lot of people may find useful and may start to use if Yahoo implements it, may be I will discuss it sometime later.

I do have lot more to say, but I will stop here as I do not have time right now, my partner is pinging me to finish the business plan document.

But in short, instead of every time changing direction and seeking new CEO, what Yahoo! need is one insider (who understands Yahoo! and cares for it) to stand up and take CEOs job and clean up the internal mess with an iron hand. Jerry is a good candidate for this, except – he lacks iron hand and is too soft. May be Filo can complement him in these areas as an invisible CEO helper.

I would say Yahoo! is the only potential company out there to challenge Google dominance in search and in other products. The only thing Yahoo! lacks is WILL POWER, which should come from its founders! – Jerry and Filo.


Well here are few simple changes in our life style if we start to do, will slowly have a vast effect on society. I will keep them adding over the time (little short of time at the moment)

First one – Whenever you see someone let him/her be totally stranger – GIVE A SMILE 🙂

A simple smile has very profound effects. A simple smile can remove lot of anger, hatred, crimes and prejudice from the society

I will give you an example: I have two nieces one 4 yr old and another 2 yr old, whenever the younger one does some mistake or breaks any crockery or does anything naughty, and sees my sister coming to her with the intention of punishing her she immediately catches her ears, gives a very big smile and says sorry. You won’t believe she is the naughtier among the two but has hardly been punished even 10% of elder one who doesn’t know this simple art to bring down others anger.

After some observation I found its her smile which is the real science in her art, I thought to experiment this on my colleagues and other people I see everyday.

The next day on my way out to car parking I saw this young beautiful lady with her puppy, usually I shy away in these type of situations, but I purposefully looked at her and when she looked at me I gave a big smile, and the reaction? She too gave me a very nice and sweet smile – the effect – I was smiling the way to my office, the traffic appeared to be different to me, usually you curse the Auto-wala but I was just looking at them and smiling, some of them gave me a strange look but more than 60% smiled back – and I am sure this made their day too.

Now in office, I decided to count how many people will reply my smile with smile. I saw few familiar faces whom I see everyday they are from different departments so we hardly know each other, we just pass by or usually glance each other while on lift. Today I gave smile to everyone I saw. Result – 80% people smiled me back and almost all of the ladies smiled back. Believe me before this smile they were familiar faces but were totally stranger. Just a simple smile removed that strangeness. Few people even waved hands while moving out of lift, as if we knew each other for long!

My further thoughts and research on this indicated that lot of crimes against the women can be reduced if they when meeting or seeing other passerby give a simple smile. Smile introduces a bond of goodness, takes away the ill-feeling and bad intentions.

Why not to try yourself! Just give a smile to whomever you meet today 🙂

Other effects of smiles:
1) Improves the health
2) Takes out stress immediately
3) Increases bonding between (may be totally unknown) people
4) Brings smile on other person’s face, which in turn in another person’s and so on
5) Makes the day!


Hillary campaign has adopted negative tactics such as invoking fear among the voters against Obama by distributing pics of him in traditional Kenyan dress and then this new ad in Texas. I think this is one of the most regretful thing a person with high values and morale can do.

Your abilities to handle crises are counted by how stable you are in such situations. Now the crises are on Clinton’s campaigns and they seem to show tendency of being nervous and becoming negative.

What bush administration has done for past many years is to rule by inducing fear among citizens and we are seeing the results – destruction, wars and deaths. Well if Hillary also wants to adopt the same tactics to somehow win the nomination, I believe people should strongly discourage her, let it be by not voting for her.

For a country and society what matters is happiness, prosperity and freedom of people, both physical and mental. And by showing these negative ads you are damaging the mental freedom of the people, which should be punishable.

Show the solutions, don’t induce fear and a completely false fear among people, you can also win by being positive rather than adopting negative stances.


Being into marketing and with a deep interest in human psychology and politics, the thought of analysis of Hillary and Obama campaigns and how well they are utilizing the fundamental concept of marketing – tapping human emotions, was very exciting.

Looking at the recent results and Obama’s victories over Hillary really surprised me, since my research on past American presidents and who did what after office, clearly pointed that people should vote for Hillary, specially the middle class and other working classes.

But once I looked into the campaign of both that surprise factor was soon gone, and it was very obvious why Obama is winning over Hillary. It is the Obama’s team’s campaign and their way of packaging Obama and then targeting the right segment of voters which are known for their ability to bring viral effect – the young voters, specifically the college going crowd. All this added good enough momentum for Obama to lead.

For e.g. just look into two sites:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/ and http://www.barackobama.com

Most of the people looking at the two will certainly incline more towards Obama unless one is a marketing person. And its no wonder why.

As a person I would vote for a candidate which represents me my needs the best. And most of the needs I myself do not know, since as the country is doing well there are jobs and money for my eduction and to take care of my everyday life I would not have that much of time to really bother about problems which are not directly touching me. So if you bombard me with this plan or that plan I wouldn’t bother. However if you say “You know you are not voting me, you are voting yourself. I ask you to vote for resolving your problems, I want you to vote to favor yourself”, these type of words will catch my attention — “Oh ok there is something related to me”. These words are talking about me and not directly calling for action to favor someone.

These words would make me like the person who is saying these, doesn’t matter who that person is. And that is what Obama is doing, he is making people like him, not calling for any action to favor him. However when you look at Hillary’s campaign, there is an immediate call for an action, in fact it seems like she is demanding to vote for her and the reasons being some problems which do not even touch me directly.

When she talks my focus goes to the problems and then her abilities to handle them which I really do not bother that much, and I do not end up like her in someway or other, because she is not involving me personally in anyway, she remains to talk about third thing.

However when Obama talks I feel to be directly involved, although he may be talking abstract but he uses words which addresses me, what I want, makes me feel somehow he is asking me to favor myself.

There is very less Obama is Obama’s talk, there is lot of audiences in his talk, his talk uses words to make audiences feel involved. And ultimately as an audience I tend to like Obama, because he is not talking about problems, or work or how to resolve them etc etc, he is talking about me, he is talking about involving me to resolve the problems. I find lot of me in his speeches.

In contrast there is lot of Hillary in Hillary’s talk, and audiences in the talk are just spectators and their only expected action is to support her. Her talks are more about problems and to effectively resolve them. I would say her talk is more logical and would certainly make any ideal computer intelligence to vote for her. But when it comes to human, they vote for someone whom they personally like.

Obama is targeting to make people like”him” however Hillary is targeting to make people realize the problems and understand she is most effective is resolving them, and history says people really do not like to realize the problems unless problems directly effects them in a bad way.

Well, I have few suggestions on what Hillary should do at the moment.

  • She should first take 4-5 hrs off from her regular schedule, look into Obama’s site and his speeches as a common person as if she has to choose between Hillary and Obama whom she would choose, try to get the reasons why as a common person she would get inclined more towards Obama. Now use these reasons effectively for her own campaign.
  • Secondly, try to reshuffle her campaign staff, get top people who are into psychology and know how to effectively use it for marketing.
  • Third, she should stop calling for actions directly to support her or vote for her, instead change her tone mainly to involve audiences. Use more “WE” than “I” (for past, present and future things). Give credit of good deeds to people and they would give you vote.
  • Fourthly, I have suggested in my last post.
  • And bottom line, she should focus more on making people like “her” than what she has done or she is capable of doing. Once audiences start to like her more than Obama, when it comes to voting they would prefer her more than Obama.