Tribute to Center for Global Development (CGD)

Dennis Whittle has a nice post praising CGD. I couldn't agree more, even when not agreeing on every issue with Nancy Birdsall and the brilliant staff she has hired at CGD. I will always be grateful to Nancy from an intensely personal perspective. She courageously took me in at CGD when I had become persona non grata to the rest of the development establishment, after my first book came out in 2001. She took a big risk in giving asylum to a dissident viewed by many as divisive and dangerous, just as she was trying to launch CGD from scratch. That said a lot about what kind of person Nancy was and is, and she has deserved every bit of her subsequent success at making CGD the premier institution it is today.

Teasing my friends at Center for Global Development: censoring for Hillary?

More updates on coverage of the big Clinton Development Speech, following up on the previous post: Chris Blattman has a negative take. Change.org some negatives, some positives, so a mixed review. The Center for Global Development (CGD) blog is positive, although mostly only about the idea of the Secretary of State even giving a whole speech devoted to development. Duncan Green at Oxfam liked some of the specific ideas in the speech. The Chronicle of Philanthropy gave an overview, citing "mixed reviews."

Mead Over disagreed with my "selectivity" complaint, saying Clinton was right to be LESS selective in health (don't just do AIDS treatment, strengthen health systems!) I confess that Mead is right on that one.

The speech host, CGD, aggregated now all the news coverage they could find, except, wait, they don't include any negative coverage...  They cited Foreign Policy — but they just gave the FP posting of the speech itself, not the review column (mine) at FP.

Oh, my dearest CGD friends, this couldn’t be some unconscious censorship of a negative view, could it?

The speech at least seems a focal point for a good discussion! Please continue to post your comments.

UPDATE: CGD has now put out a new press coverage aggregrate that includes negative coverage. I knew I could count on them, they're good people. (They certainly are a LOT more responsive than the USAID that Hillary wants to reform, who would either not answer or refuse to change or both.)