March 2008 Archive

It is interesting that Senator Obama came to Cooper Union this morning, especially since the event itself was not even on the schedule until Monday (four days ago, according to a source) and I later heard that he considered giving the speech on Wall Street instead of Cooper Union, but I think the choice of venue was apt after the obvious parallels I insinuated from the previous post.

I got up quite early to experience the event - showing up at 7am and finding a seat as things were beginning to occur. Volunteers were all a-bustle, security was setting up and men with strange things in their ears pervaded the space. In following up with my former post, I spoke to a number of students around me (please note that the Great Hall was designed over 100 years ago, so if you think airline seats are small….) as well as students on line getting into the event. For the students that made it into the Hall early, they were certainly part of the Millennials crowd Winograd and Hais speak of - enthusiastic about politics, enthusiastic about making a difference, part of the civic realignment generation. But, when I went outside and caught up with the people who were showing up closer to the start of the speech, there was a different tone - one of “checking it out”, “interested in the fact that he could be the President”, and such. Somewhat different tone, but I am not surprised at the difference since the ones who showed up early had a strong enthusiastic tone, where everyone else was here to “see”.

The speech itself

When the Chairman of the Board of Trustees spoke (Ron Drucker) who then introduced Mayor Bloomberg, it could look like an endorsement of Obama for President. But Bloomberg discussed the issues of the day and to maintain an open mind and - at least from my point-of-view - gave other contenders a chance to speak in NYC (and at the Great Hall) on the topic of the economy. And, with a flourish indicative of Mayor Bloomberg (”This morning, we have another gentlemen from Illinois…”), he announced Senator Obama.

You can see Senator Obama’s speech after the fold or read the transcript here, but to simplify it, it is in three parts:

• to address the immediate crisis in the housing market;
• to create a 21st century regulatory framework, and
• to pursue a bold opportunity agenda for the American people

Read the rest of this entry »

Yesterday, I got an email from the Cooper mailing list, informing me that he would be coming to Cooper Union to speak in the Cooper Union Dialogue Series (the same one that Mike Bloomberg spoke at). While I do not think that there will be a moderator, I am certain there will be parallels drawn about him speaking here and another Illinois senator speaking close to 150 years earlier.

What was especially interesting was watching a large clot of my students, who have never struck me as politically active, almost rioting in the quest of getting these tickets for the event. The line was especially long, students had been waiting outside to get one of these precious tickets, and the discussion as to why they wanted to be there were along the lines of what Winograd and Hais mentioned in their talk. This is about being part of a “good thing”, a person of “vision”, and a feeling of something special about coming to the Great Hall once again.

What supported the story was the fact that the students (in Engineering) were aware of the event, will more than likely make up the majority of the students coming, and were rapidly communicating with each other (via text and mobile Facebook) when tickets got scarce. Even after I got my ticket, I was privy to a discussion on the elevator about how important it was to have the ticket (each got only one) and that they were going to “guard it with their lives”.

I do not know about you, but I certainly am amazed and impressed with the students here at Cooper. They did themselves proud. I am curious to see how the Senator will do tomorrow.

And, to listen/read about the similarities/history of an Illinois Senator coming to New York and speaking for history, go to the NYTimes podcast here.

Update: According to Elisabeth Benjamin at the Daily News, Mayor Bloomberg will be introducing Obama. Shall be interesting. If the Secret Security allows me, I will live-blog his speech as I attempted to do for Mayor Bloomberg back in October ([1], [2]).

Tags: Barack Obama at Cooper Union, Barack Obama at the Great Hall, Lincoln at Cooper Union

This evening, as I finished my work at Cooper, I took a walk over to the Great Hall to listen to Dr. Fred Shapiro introduce Morley Winograd and Michael Hais discuss their new book, “Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube and the Future of American Politics” with a talk asking the question, “Is there a Lincoln or FDR in the 2008 Presidential Race?”

Interestingly, the talk seems to have been a combination of the premise of the book creation, as well as an attempt to answer the question posed at the start of the talk. [Suffice it to say, I think they would say Obama is the next Lincoln/FDR - more on this later] But what was most interesting to me was the discussion of the impact of technology and generational demographics and their impact on American history - which goes to the heart of two of my posts ([1], [2]), “Would social networks impact the 2008 election?”.

At the time, I answered in the negative.

After last night (and this book), I might have a different point of view…

Impact of Technology and Generational Swings

Note: I have only started to read the book as of yet, but I was entranced with the discussion by both speakers and their premises. I must say that I agree with much of what they said and suggest, though I do not completely agree (yet) with some of the mechanisms.

From the start of the talk, Morley drew the obvious parallels with Lincoln and Obama, Steward (Lincoln’s “primary Republican” adversary) and Clinton and the issue of race during the election cycle. [Note: I promise to go into the parallels that exist].

But, what perked my ears and interest was the discussion of generational impact and the advent of technology and the impact it had on campaigns and their hypothesis on how it has, on 40 year cycles (give or take some years) cause a civic realignment in terms of political parties and fundamental populational relationship with government and civic duty.

Winograd and Hais’s basic premise is that civic realignment - where they characterize it by the “enhanced party identification and straight-ticket voting, rising voter turnout or stable turnout at high levels, positive attitudes towards politics and political institutions, and a focus on broader societal and economic concerns rather than social issues involving personal morality”. [p. 27] They argue that this civic realignment is a predictable phenomena that occurs every forty years in America due primarily to:

• political coming-of-age of a large dynamic generation, and
• emergence of a new communication technology

which results in clear changes in:

• electoral results: major parties change power
• voting behavior: South going Democratic, after being Republican and back, and
• public policy: from a laissez faire foreign policy to a force-projection policy in 1932

With this premise, Winograd and Hais posit that this generation - the Millennials - will cause another major civic shift and cause a new outcome in our government that focuses on the societal and economic issues of the day, rather than the divisive issues of our time.

I could short-circuit the discussion with the final statements that:

• likely winner of the Presidential election: Barack Obama
• movement of civic involvement in a more responsible fashion: college for public service (as in AmeriCore and Kerry’s National Service program)
• redistribution of wealth from the top 1% to a more even spread
• acceptance of programs that require group sacrifice, rather than blind ignorance of the hidden cost of inaction

I must say that I am pleased this is being painted, and hope that it does come about - which we will see what happens in the coming months. I believed it as the time with Kerry and Dean (as Winograd and Hais said that the Millennials and the Boomers did vote overwhelmingly for), but the weight of the Millennials were not felt until this year - and this cycle. And for that, I look forward to seeing the outcome.

After the fold, I give a short summary of their premise.
Read the rest of this entry »

To every New Yorker and to all those who who believed in what I tried to stand for, I am sincerely sorry.

– Eliot Spitzer, March 12th, 2008

You know, when I was on the campaign trail in 2006, I had to set up various meetings with my candidate and then-Attorney General Spitzer, a man who entered with grace and style, who had come up from Brooklyn and made a name for himself. When we met, he was confident and ready for change, as the idea of “bringing passion back to Albany” was his key to future success.

The last three days has been heart-breaking; to watch the press continually hammering on his indescretions, and to see a man who once represented hope and change in New York politics, be brought low by this act. And, as with many people commenting on the limited visuals that have been presented, I was struck by Mrs. Spitzer and how this must be weighing on her.

“Don’t Always Stand By Your Man”

I was reading politico.com this morning and came across the following post by Laura Nicols on how it is demeaning and difficult to watch a strong, good woman stand next to their husband as they self-flagellate in front of a nation-wide and world-wide audience. Laura makes some good points (IMHO) where she says:

The only possible explanation for doing what Silda Wall Spitzer did Monday and others have done before her is the age old classic: It’s for the children. But what does her decision to appear aside her husband now teach the Spitzers’ three daughters about taking responsibility for their own mistakes? In this case, Gov. Spitzer allegedly broke the law, broke his public trust, broke his marriage vows, broke his children’s hearts and may well have exposed their mother to unsafe sex to boot.

For once, I’d like to see a political spouse not stand by her man. Stay with him if you choose. But for the sake of the kids, let’s teach them that there are consequences when you screw up this badly. You have to stand alone because of the mistake you alone made. Teach them that there is a shred of honor in owning your mistakes, in facing up to them with no one at your side, in sparing your devastated family a single second of rehearsed fortitude at their saddest hour. Show them you respect their sadness so much there will be no forcing, coercing or expecting that your family will share your very public humiliation on the stage you’ve always sought.

To Mrs. Spitzer, I also extend my heart out to her and her family. A strong woman who has dedicated her life to building a family with her husband and her three daughters - it is truly for the children that is the focus of a family. Watching her on the stage with Eliot has been heart-wrenching. One thought I kept having was “Why does he not face the issue head on, without the “required” support from his wife?” He brought the actions upon himself and (inadvertently) his family. He should take responsibility for his actions, not to include his wife in the scurrilous issue.

As I listened to NY1 commentators explaining the reasons for Mrs. Spitzer being at his side, I recognize and also understand that there is a political “team” between Eliot and Mrs. Spitzer. And in some situations (e.g. Pres. Clinton and Sen. Clinton, State Senator Rod and DeeDee Smith), I can agree. In politics (and campaigning), it is not one person, but two, that are behind the candidate. But, I still think that it is a tough part to play for the wife, when the husband is the cause of the scandal.

We each have a choice in how we live our lives - choosing on a daily basis along the ranges of high honor and integrity to duplicity and scandal. No one is perfect in the world, and as the technology continues to erode our privacy, we have to become more aware that the past that we thought would evaporate into the ether is only a google search or audio file retrieval away. As members of the electorate, we have to evaluate our measure of who we wish our politicians to be, and to act - now, in the past, and in the future.

No one is perfect. But no person should have to endure more than they should for the mistakes of others…even if they are family. Family matters are simply that - family matters. Dishonesty with the people who elected you, that is another matter.

Tags: Eliot Spitzer, honor and integrity, ethics in politics

As I went for my snack of cashews this evening, I took a glance at the newest Rolling Stone and saw the cover that graces this post. Underneath the “A New Hope” title, I saw the subtitle that I had been waiting for, “The Machinery of Hope“, covering the process story that I wondered if it would ever see the light of day.

I got a little guff from some other posters out there about my article on whether or not would social networks impact the 2008 election, and I think that the premise of my argument might have got lost in the translation. Simply, the idea that social networks like Facebook, MySpace, Bebo, hi5, MyYearbook and the other 100+ social networks that currently line the Internet landscape would not seriously impact the election if the campaigns did not apply resources to the problem of virtual canvassing.

What pleased me in reading this article from Rolling Stone was the fact that the campaign married online engagement with offline activities and vice versa. Never a campaign event went off without capturing people’s email addresses, zip codes and names as they came to the event. Never a chance was forgotten to drive engagement both online and off - using the MyBO site to drive involvement and community. I just pulled out of one of my (many) proposals to campaigns from prior to the 2006 elections where I request the candidate and their campaign to:

The goal of any campaign is to convert uninterested persons into avid supporters – developing a relationship with these supporters over the course of the campaign. Migrating supporters along this path is an art, rather than a science – since the details of conversion are often considered nebulous at best (e.g. like his looks, his stance on taxes, his wife’s cookie recipe), but the steps are almost always the same – and evidenced in any involvement effort.

Physical Events – fundraisers, rallies, field events

At these events – the two most important actions are the acquisition of email addresses by the staff at the event, the branding of all candidate merchandise with the campaign URL and finally, the candidate mentioning the website URL in his speech and other opportunities.

The conversion ratio (number of emails that become active supporters) is always highest through this method – they have self-selected by coming to the event, and they have expressed an interest by signing the form/giving a business card.

Driving the point home that getting involved with the campaign is all at the website will drive interested activists to the site and signup.

Follow up is key – as with any effort – a thank you note with information regarding the candidate allows the supporter to see the campaign values their time and offers the supporter a chance to “get involved” in other ways. The conversion rate of confirmed supporters goes up with just this simple gesture.

This concept was brought home to me over the years whenever I would see how the people we met at events would be more enthusiastic that the people who just gave their email or money over the Internet. The simple lesson is: if they care enough to spend some of their time to come out to an event, they more than likely will do more for you beyond just listening and cheering.

A chance to build up some “social capital”

Additionally, the article in Rolling Stone discusses the marriage of old-school shoe leather campaigning with “new-era” technology - which can be simply read as opening up the supporter database. To credit David Weinberger with his request from the 2004 Politics Online Conference, he asked why didn’t the Dean Campaign let the grassroots run with the campaign? Because, unlike this cycle, training and organizing of the grassroots was not supported by the campaign.

Read the rest of this entry »

The following is a joint statement that Eric Massa and I have collaborated on drafting which follows the libel complaint described in this post.

Emphasis is mine.

Read the rest of this entry »