Relevance

Relevance can be everything in our business. In the 90s, IBM lost all relevance and was about to disappear -some think they are irrelevant today-. So they had to reinvent themselves, to recover their relevance in the business. Sun suffered much the same pain, we lost relevance after the dot com crisis, and by betting for the opensource strategy, new processors, R+D, etc., we are coming back, more relevant than ever (and wait until Solaris is the reference OS in the
enterprise level: we'll never loose our relevance again).
I love this Jonathan's picture, that's why I enclosed it here.

Relevance is not everything, there is also transcendence in what we do, in our actions. They have to be transcendent for the future.

That is why John Edwards should endorse Hillary R. Clinton now. If he does it now, this movement may be of great importance, as Hillary seems to be half defeated by Obama, and Edwards' endorsement would give her the impulse she needs to win the nomination, so he would be in a position where he could influence in the Clinton administration, if she wins the General Election later.
If Edwards waits too much, either candidate could assure its nomination, and thus Edwards' endorsement would be of no relevance at all.
On the other hand, Edwards could give support to Obama hoping that he would later support some of his politics in the future, but, as important as it may be, as Obama is seen now like the front-runner, Edwards would not be in a position to provide such an influence in Obama's administration as he would in a Clinton's.





By the way, I spent the weekend with Jonathan, I guess that's the reason why I am writing very much in his style...