Political Gastronomica : Campaign 2008

Obama a Muslim? Obama in a madrassa? Waitaminute!

"Oi!", as my Jewish grandmother would say. "This guy, Obama was a Muslim? How could I vote for him?"

Oi indeed - if my grandmother believed all that the Internet provides. Recently, I got an email from another friend of mine showing me this assertion - suggesting that because Obama's father was Muslim and was Islamic, that meant that Obama naturally was - and that the Senator was potentially lying! When you read the stories that are being propagated on the web:

• Tracking Down Obama in Indonesia - a site by an American Expat currently living in Indonesia who suggests (paradoxically) that "Looking at the school, it is easy to see how someone could confuse it with a madrassa with it's domed roof and Islamic architecture, but SD Besuki is indeed a government primary school and not a madrassa."
• World Net Daily - seems to suggest that due to his father's actions and his relatives religious practices that he would have to have been a Muslim.

PLEEZE - get a life!
Frustratingly, these assertions are ones that are not particularly relevant to the issues that we need a strong leader for (IMHO), especially since they seem to be assertions, not statements of fact. I personal worry that the discussion of these assertions give them life (since others see them and will not take time to read the details), But, for the sake of free discourse to occur, lets discuss the assertions:

Assertion: Obama was (at one time in his life) a Muslim
Okay - this one I have been searching for details to fight - especially the concept that if the father is Islamic, then the sons are automatically Islamic. In the Jewish faith, the children of a Jewish woman are considered Jewish, but the father has no official determination in the Orthodoxy in this matter. But, what is amazing to me is that the decision of a parent is assumed to automatically become the mark on a child.

In my upbringing, I was raised Jewish and attended nursery school at a Jewish temple until I moved to another school for my education. But, while I was growing up, my mother introduced me to various other religions - I even remember attending a Midnight Mass when I was very little. I remember some of the lyrics of the hymns when I was there (I have a decent memory for lyrics), and could more than likely recite them quite well today. I also remember the Sh'Ma that I heard in temple and could easily sing those lyrics as far back as when I was not in Hebrew School because I thought the music of hundreds of people singing the songs were beautiful as well.

But just because my mother was Jewish, it did not mean that I was "automatically" Jewish. Even though I had never been Bar Mitzvah'ed, I took it upon myself to go to services, to pray during Yom Kippur, to stand up at the be'ma and become part of the Jewish Community wherever I was, since I grew to accept the Jewish faith as my own. Tuthfully, it was a personal decision - and one I chose for myself - not because my mother might have been Jewish.

Senator Obama seems to have chosen a different path from his family - while he may have been exposes to Islam at an early age (even the video on the FightTheSmears website discusses that there is a religious class taught there), Senator Obama made his choice on religion and has been a committed Christian with his wife and children. Does this mean he is any less a Christian from being from a Muslim father? Is not Christianity about the acceptance of others and the strong belief in the acceptance of Jesus as the savior the metric in which we are part of that faith?

FACT: Obama is a committed Christian and it is HIS choice to be one.

Assertion: Obama studied attended a "radical madrassa."
While some people use this one website to assert that Obama's primary school taught religious studies to all of the students, I have to refer back to this video from CNN who shows us that a primary school - even 40 years ago - was a government run school teaching secular teachings. Consider the photo of the teachers at that time - would an Islamic school or a "radical madrassa" have men and women garbed the way the teachers were? Watch and video for yourself.

And, my favorite response from my Repub friend: "But do you know what "madrassa' actually means in Arabic? It means 'school'. So, if Obama went to a primary school in Indonesia, then it means he was in a 'madrassa'. Right?"

"Oi!" again. Yes, the literal meaning for "madrassa" does stand for "any type of school, secular or religious (of any religion)", but our common use of the word, it refers to a religious Islamic school, not unlike a temple or Sunday school. So, while the evidence from the CNN video shows that the school itself was not a school of Islamic studies, I could suggest that it was a "radical madrassa" since it was operating like a typical Western school, without the primary focus of Islam and religious studies. But, in the terms being asserted, please - get a life.

FACT: Obama went to a government-run, public school that was not focused on teaching Islam to its students as a primary means of education.

And I find it hypocritical that some of the people who are making such assertions (or replicating them) are the same people who would strive for creating programs in "Intelligent Design" in our secular school systems or support the removal of the separation of Church and State from our government and educational institutions.

A man's (or a woman's) faith is their matter for themselves and their G-d. Our choice is whether we wish this person to become our President. For this choice, I can not see that Senator Obama does not have a relationship with G-d - I see a man, with his family, supporting both his faith and his choice of faith. And while the Reverend Wright may have used the bully pulpit to his PR advantage, the Senator did not waver from his faith or his belief.

Religion and the ideals of a religion ARE separable from the man (or woman) leading them. Much like the ideals that this country was founded upon, the men who have lead may have strayed from them at times (and boy, do not get me started on the Bush Administration). This country is a beacon in this world - an incredible ideal that EVERY DAY we have to continue to struggle and fight to reach those perfect ideals. I think discourse is fine - and I think a good discussion is always valuable. But sometimes, I think we can get lost in the salacious minutia and forget the big picture.

Please. Do not forget why we are in this election this year. And why your choice should be on who will accomplish what we need for our future and our children's future.

UPDATE: another great site: Is Barack Obama Is a Muslim?

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 9:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Real McCain....kind of scary

So, a friend of mine sent me this link to the video below. And, if it does not concern you - then you are not focused on the campaign. But then again, it is well-worth the watch if you want to learn about the real McCain:

And while I respect Senator McCain's military service, just because he was in the Navy does not give him the right to make one statement and then change it to another. Sorry, just not the Navy way.

Or is it?

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 11:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Looking for a few good Democratic developers...

Hey there - was reading my mail and found a couple of requests for two positions the Obama Campaign is looking to fill. More than likely, you are already aware - but if you are not, check these out. Truthfully, they are perfect for making a difference this election - the campaign can use any and all help they can receive.

Role: Deputy CTO/Chief Data Architect

• 2+ years in professional technology management
• Expert understanding of enterprise database architecture including large-scale data integration across multiple systems, API development, automation and matching optimization
• Familiarity with political data a strong plus including voter files, scoring, and political modeling
• Deep familiarity with web development including project management, feature development, and specification
• Willingness and ability to work in fast-paced, multi-project environment
• An abiding desire to be part of a movement to change American politics.

Role: Software Developers for Web Applications

The Obama campaign earned a reputation for smart use of online technology during the primary, but needs to go to the next level in the general election. To make this happen, we need some smart people to join our team.

The Obama Campaign is looking for creative, smart people who are willing to work long hours to be part of an effort that will not just win an election, but change the way campaigns are run. If you find someone who doesn't have the requisite years of experience, but believes they can fill the spot, please encourage them to apply anyway.

Send an email to jg@rock-creek-ventures.com and please reference Political Gastronomica.

I would not suggest that money will be good, but the experience is incredible.

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 10:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Does three Repub losses foretell a Blue Wave in 2008?

Reading today's NYTimes article on the Repub loss in Mississippi this week seems to have Repubs worried that they will not win and the Democrats are poised to grow their lead in the House and Senate. But something seems amiss here. All we have to do is take our crystal ball (Oh great google search, can you help us?) and look at what was happening just two years ago.

Two years ago at this time, the Repubs were at the top of their game. The Economist back in 2006 were discussing the Republican hegemony, the discussion of a Democratic lead in the House was on the order of 2 seats, and the Senate was comfortably in Republican hands. Then, the departure of one of the most powerful Repubs was announced in April (Tom Delay) and then in July, a little-known Florida Congressman named Mark Foley appeared on the scene. With these two issues, combined by the Repub's Dennis Hastert looking like an inept keeper of the House, it was little wonder that the Democrats were suddenly seen as the alternative to the poorly performing Repubs.

A short four months later and the world was talking about a Democrat majority in the House of 15 to 30 seats and a potential overturning of the Senate. From what seemed to be a certainty of stability for the Repubs became the Blue Wave that shaped 2006.

So, you think we can win now?
Well, with the Democrats winding up the long march to the nomination and McCain doing a couple of definite different dances on the stereotype Repub issues (did you catch him in Oregon as he stumps this week?) And, with a majority that was not veto proof, the mantle of the "do-nothing" Repub Congress might get handed to the Democrats through no fault of their own. And the question that I wonder about is...

What new story will come from Congress this year?

See, I am not worried about Obama and his past, since he is operating on change, his history and the Dems history is very different and can not be attributed to each other (as the Repubs discovered in the Mississippi election). But, that does not mean the Repubs will not find ways of using the Democratic Congress's own stories against them - including the lack of performance on the issues of the day that mattered to the people that got them elected.

I wonder what will happen next.

Tags: Campaign 2008, Congressional Races, Democratic Chances

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 3:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Freedom of Information leads to better engagement?

This afternoon, as I was working on an Executive Summary, my business partner said something about Obama touting a major endorsement tonight at 7pm. A few minutes later, he told me it was John Edwards making the endorsement. I asked him how he knew, and he said that everyone was Twittering about it.

A few minutes later, he showed me on PoliticalBase the continually updating content including the flight path information on John Edward's private plane heading to Michigan for the announcement. Not only did this blow my mind when I saw it, but the fact that a community of people - working from scant information - was able to piece together the story faster than the MSM was another step in the direction of distributed management and creation of content. The power of freely accessible data, speed of information across these new social networks and connection technology combined with the tools that are existing - we are still seeing revolutionary things happening in the political and social space.

Ron Paul and the incredible Libertarian energies
It is funny, because just last night, I was speaking to someone about the Ron Paul campaign and how it was able to use data that it gave access to the world freely to create new tools that would engage the electorate and his supporters. From freely offering the data from who was making online donations and how much to video engagement strategies that would make most Beltway campaigns cringe, the use of mashups and freely accessible data into incarnations that new software applications and platforms enable.

For example, imaging if Obama was offering a feed of donations to their campaign as an RSS feed and some person took that data, stripped out nothing but the dollars donated and plotted the information on a graphing solution like Trendrr. Now, imagine people are able to generate their own data and make their own assessments with the information, free from the opinions of the pundits and the "opinionmakers". Whew!

Tags: Political Mashup

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 10:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Should the Democratic Primary Race drag on?

I was sitting in the Qantas/American Airlines Lounge in Honolulu listening to the continual drone of CNN and the discussion of the diminishing lead in superdelegates she has (as of this post, she is down to a +2 lead). I watched Senator Obama as he stumped in Oregon, I watched Senator Clinton as she painted the end of the race and how the party will "come together and put a Democrat in the White House".

All the pundits put their own spin on the race, and I have my own. I have been a supporter of whomever I think can bring about positive change in America's Future, and my own naval gazing brought about my decision of Senator Obama from a number of paths. But, has the continuing primary battles negatively impacted the potential for the Democrats to take back the White House? I think not, and here is why:

• First time in a long time - almost all of America participated in this primary election.
  More than anything else, the need for the campaigns to go into each state, position themselves with the local Democrats and build a relationship is the first time in my memory that Democrats were fighting for your votes, rather than expecting them.
• Helped the 50-State Strategy
  In running almost all of the state primaries in a real race, both candidates have built up expertise in the Districts, gotten a good sense of the voter turnout, and gotten a read for the upcoming General Election. They got to build up the infrastructure and dry-test the machine with the primary contest - which is an overall good IMHO. Last time around, we had to build this infrastructure from the parts already in place and shake off the national-to-state connectivity back then. I remember watching the Broward and Florida State offices being built, deploying and redeploying talent and infrastructure at a time when it was a rush to make it to November. I was not as impressed as I have been with both the Clinton and the Obama Campaign efforts to date in various stages. Obama has truly fine-tuned their volunteer/online connectivity efforts, and it is something that I think the Repubs will have their hands full this time around.
• Hardened Obama from Repub attacks
  With the grace and aplomb he has shown during the primary, I truly think he will be a much better candidate this time after the attacks and pressure by the strong Clinton machine. Sorry, but when you are attacked by the Repubs for eight years and loathed for the next eight years, you tend to pick up skills in defence and offense. I think the Repubs will see a different candidate this time around.

Is this a good thing?
I think so - tho I worry now about two factors:

• McCain's time for building an infrastructure and funding
  Reading the WSJ this morning (which I know is only a mouthpiece of the Faux News Corp), there was definitely the discussion of the past three months giving McCain the ability to build his organization in the past three months. This could be a concern, but my earlier point should hopefully demonstrate the difference between a battle-tested organization and an organization "in-wait".
• The JesusLand Coalition / 72 Hour Plan
  Last time out, we as Democrats did not find the natural connection to the standing infrastructure that is found in the church-going, Republican leaning communities. While Obama has a coalition that has been formed online and with the Black community, I worry about what is the infrastructure that we support that people in the community feel an allegiance to. When church and state combine, our needs are often met in the social realm as well. When politics is the major connection, I wonder - how will we get the supporters to dedicate themselves above and beyond? How will the social reinforcement occur?

This is a question I have been asking myself for a while - and continue to puzzle. There is a stratification of supporters and a need for connection and community. If Obama is able to play his opportunities right with the American people, then we have a winner. More to follow in the coming days.

Tags: Barack Obama, Campaign 2008, Hillary Clinton, Primary Race 2008

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 10:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Chelsea is a woman of class...and style...

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote up a post about my enthusiasm for Senator Obama and my "letter" to Chelsea about not choosing her Mom as my choice for the primaries. This morning, I got an eyeful from all sorts of vitriol seen in the Washington Post article on her coming into her own.

While I might be supporting Senator Obama over Senator Clinton, I have always been supportive of the Clintons, and been nothing but impressed with Chelsea. Back when she was a freshman at Stanford, she was dealing with the insanity of her father's impeachment and the stress that bore on her at that time. She handled it with aplumb and grace that women twice their age could only dream of. In her sophomore year, when she was considerate enough to join me for a lunch, we had such an easy rapport that I felt nothing but awe in this woman who could grace world leaders with a smile, endear reporters and politicians with small talk and enjoy some co-op food with a graduate student who had simply danced with her at the Viennese Ball when an opportunity arose.

And, there is a funny story about the poise this woman had even before coming to Stanford which few have heard.

Even as a young woman looking to graduate Stillwell and seeking her own path, she was looking afar from her family - taking a program that would be far different than her family before her.

At Stanford, during Rosh Hashana, I would often see her in the Hillel's makeshift services where she was listening and learning about the Jewish faith. She was a sponge for new knowledge and a student of grace and style. As our paths have crossed in other locales, I have been nothing but astounded by her.

As a surrogate, Chelsea Clinton is a powerful advocate for her Mom and the vision her mother holds for America. Let this powerful woman support her Mom, as wives and husbands have helped other their family in the past.

You go Chelsea. Make a difference.

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 10:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Obama at Cooper Union on 21st Century Market Regulation

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

Solving the housing crisis
From the points on his plan, it sounds like we are focusing on solving the issues of enabling lenders to refinance, to handle the impact and penalties of fraud and bankruptcy, and to push lenders to be more vigilant in the future against actions as we have seen. In reading this (and listening), it sounded good, but bureaucratic. Broad, positive strokes (especially with the Dodd legislation) but understandably managed in the timeframe presented.

One of the most powerful statements he made was a basic turn of phrase on the "rolling downhill" concept. Rather, instead of Wall Street and Main Street being separate from each other:

What was bad for Main Street turned out to be bad for Wall Street - and this time, pain trickled up.

21st Century Regulation
This is the topic that everyone will be speaking about since this is about changing what we already know as "free markets" and "no government regulation". Interestingly enough, this speaks directly to the Millennials and their acceptance of the responsibilities that someone has to resolve this, and with a civic realignment, maybe it is about time to re-engage in the protection of our freedoms and security. To that end, Obama proposed:

• borrow from the government, you should be subject to government oversight and supervision
• general reform of the requirements to which all regulated financial institutions are subjected to
• work with international arrangements like the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the International Accounting Standards Board, and the Financial Stability Forum to address the same problems abroad
• streamline a framework of overlapping and competing regulatory agencies - do not need the redundant bureaucracies
• regulate institutions for what they do, not what they are
• crack down on trading activity that crosses the line to market manipulation
• a process that identifies systemic risks to the financial system - a financial market oversight commission

Now, I am certain that my friends in the Republican Party are going to have a field-day with howling about the intrusion of government into "our lives". But the sad part of this is - government got out of our lives in some ways (safeguarding our financial prosperity) but is in our lives in other (e.g. Terry Shiavo). Can someone say "hypocrites"?

The third part of his speech brought back the flourish of the American Dream and what it means to everyday Americans. But I think, once again, he took on a topic and discussed something that will require argument and discussion amoungst us and our choices, since the basic principle that Obama discusses is that we are the responsible ones. We are done with waiting for our turn to stand up - our turn is now.

I know we can do this because Americans have done this before. Time and again, we've recognized that common stake that we have in each other's success. That's how people as different as Hamilton and Jefferson came together to launch the world's greatest experiment in democracy. That's why our economy hasn't just been the world's greatest wealth creator - it's bound America together, it's created jobs, and it's made the dream of opportunity a reality for generations of Americans.

Now it falls to us. We have as our inheritance the greatest economy the world has ever known. We have the responsibility to continue the work that began on that spring day over two centuries ago right here in Manhattan - to renew our common purpose for a new century, and to write the next chapter in the story of America's success. We can do this. And we can begin this work today.

Tags: Barack Obama at Cooper Union, Barack Obama at the Great Hall, Obama on the Economy, Obama proposing 21st Century Regulation

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 11:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Obama speaking at Cooper Union supports the Millennial theory

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

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 8:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Millennial Makeover: Is there a Lincoln or FDR in the 2008 race?

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.

Start with Generational Analysis
Based on generational analysis (which I knew very little about except that I was a GenX-er that acts like a Millennial), there are essentially four generational types that break down into ten year groupings. They are:

• The Hero/Civic Generation - the last one was the one in 1932 (the "Greatest Generation") who brought about the change that we saw in the election of FDR and WWII - a very dynamic group that tends to be quite large
• The Nomad/Reactive Generation - this generation spends time trying to respond to the impact of the Civic Generation's efforts
• The Prophet/Idealistic Generation - this is essentially the Baby Boomers, where trusting government and involvement in civic responsibilities are throw aside for their self-needs, and then the focus on maintaining that independence - another lare and dynamic grouping of people
• The Artist/Adaptive Generation - currently, GenX is representative of this generation - latch-key kids who had to fend for themselves and provide support for themselves and their families

What is interesting is that the generational breakdowns map interestingly to technological advances in communications, communities and collaboration. For instance:

• 1820 - the growth within America of improved transportation (canals and steamboats) and then railroads which gave rise to the first political convention in 1828
• 1860 - the invention of the telegraph which allowed for the spread of news from one geographic location to another in the form of regional newspapers
• 1896 - the expansion of the telephone allowed for greater collaboration and coordination of the Republican party
• 1932 - the invention and expansion of the radio - and in particular the treatment and growth of its use (which is quite similar to the growth of iPods in this generation)
• 1968 - the invention and expansion of television and its ability to "shrink" the world
• 2008 - social networks and the peer-to-peer communications that exist with mobile telecommunications

What surprised me is how the generations breakdown into these groups quite consistently (based on the past 200 years of research and history - which Wikipedia and the Strauss and Howe book (Generations: The History of America's Future) support. Based on this - and the incredible similarities that history and our time show - I am quite certain they are right, but not sure I completely agree with all of the mechanisms they discuss.

Social Networks Impacting the 2008 Election?
I have written two posts on this topic - and specifically the fact that the campaign that makes use of the social networks will find their success assured, but my skepticism that the campaigns have yet to utilize them. Winograd and Hais speak of the "Facebook platform" that the myBO is built upon, but it is my understanding that this is a tool from Blue State Digital and not an extension of the Facebook platform. Additionally, I am (normally) not a supporter of the YASN (yet another social network) mentality, since I think that the hyper-segmentation of networks will continue to be met, with increasingly lower costs and new communities will be built up.

But, in the course of writing this post, I realize that I have discussed the needs for in-person connections and "tabling" is quite important. I also school my clients (both political and commercial) that the keys of success are found in using the networks to spread the message via word-of-mouth, or "word-of-network". And, the myBO is actually what I have been asking for IF the campaign is seriously using it to rally the supporters and the "influentials" as discussed in the 2004 campaigns.

Process Behavior and Social Capital
Since people have self-selected and become members of myBO, and a large enough community has formed on the space - and IF the campaign has been communicating AND allowing others to communicate across the network, then the natural word-of-network flows happen into these other social networks since the nodal people ("influencers") have allowed for the crossing of physical (and URL) boundaries. Interestingly enough, the viral nature of the message (as in Dean AND Obama was "vision and empowerment"), coupled with the stateless nature and ease of "travel" from one social network to another (via your browser), which allows for the rapid distribution and aggregation of people into events and communities.

Since these nodal people are about building social capital in informing and educating others on the issues and situations, it is a natural effect. And with a large community (such as the Millennials) who have been raised on Napster (sharing copyrighted music) and MySpace (personal expression/exposure at young age), YouTube (peer-to-peer visual connection) and Facebook (who are already conditioned to tracking the state of their personal social network), I think that social networks as a transport medium have impacted the 2008 election - which goes into my BarCamp discussion on the speed of memes in various communities.

Hmmmmm....18 months since my first post on this topic, could it be I could be mistaken? More than happy to entertain the concept.

Millennial Makeover site: www.millennialmakeover.com
Millennial Makeover blog: millennialmakeover.blogspot.com
Buy the book: Millennial Makeover

Tags: Social Networks in Politics, Millennial Makeover, Millennial Generation Impact, Impact of Social Networks, Speed of Memes

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 3:47 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Rolling Stone: Inside Obama's People-Powered Revolution

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.

Empowering the Grassroots
One of my favorite slogans is "If you can't beat them, join them." I would say that David Axelrod took that statement to heart when he combined the organizing talents of Temo Figueroa and the technology of the MyBO platform to create their own campaign communications channel. By training their supporters and leveraging technology, the Obama campaign was able to amplify their efforts and amass a group of supporters and volunteers that were equipped to do the work that paid staffers might.

It has always been my contention that training people to do something on your behalf is imparting wisdom and knowledge that they do not have. And, since they are part of your program - and Democrats to boot - you are building your team, and the future teams to help create a better, stronger effort in the future.

People become loyal, not just because you are a winner, but because you gave to them and they give to you. In the blogosphere parlance, we call that social capital. And that is something hard to "purchase" no matter how much money you have.

Are social networks impacting the election? I STILL say no, but...
It is the techniques of open networks, finding ways of connecting people through means that they have become more familiar with (e.g. Facebook, MySpace and the multitude of social-network, community sites) in searching down people's profiles and their friends, using search tools to find like-minded individuals AND the cooperation of the campaigns organization team that truly makes the tools and technology of social networks empower the campaign to convert simple supporters to enthusiastic volunteers.

I remember Governor Dean and Joe Trippi saying something to the effect of, "the campaign is not here, it is out there." Funny thing is, the feedback loop and the respect paid to the supporters and volunteers will pay of in spades. That is social capital that I hope the Democratic Party learns to work with (and not simply take advantage of) in the future.

I truly look forward to see what happens next.

Public/private callout: hey JoeR - great work!

Tags: Barack Obama, eCampaigning, social networks in politics, eField Organizing, Distributed Campaigns, social capital, David Weinberger

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 1:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Dear Chelsea, I am sorry it has been a while...

Back in 1997, when I returned to Stanford University, I had a couple of accidential run-ins with a very amazing woman, Chelsea Clinton. Interrupting a meeting with the head of the Stanford Dance Division and Chelsea, inviting her to become part of the Viennese Ball Opening Committee, and then even dancing with her during that same ball - all as a freshman who was astonishingly more mature that any eighteen year old I had ever met. The following year, we even had lunch together, simply because I always felt awkward about having "met Chelsea" without actually knowing her. She was incredibly gracious, and is an incredible person. Our lives have followed parallel paths ever since (she moved to Cambridge around the same time I moved to London, she moved to New York and I followed soon after).

Watching her on the stump for her Mom and remembering the good times that were the Nineties, I think back to the success we had in our lives, with a vision of hope that President Clinton embodied. Fourteen years later, things have changed. And that brings me to my choice of recommendation and a letter:

Tags: Chelsea Clinton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Campaign 2008, Super Tuesday

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 1:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Wow - JK stands his ground and stays above the fray

Well, I am catching up on This Week with George Stephanopoulos and watched as he interviewed JK. And, for a man who has many ways of looking at an issue and trying to be very professorial, he did amazingly well with the question about Shrum's book and the quote regarding Edwards. Now, I have no idea what the quote was, but JK did not rise to the bait - and that was impressive.

Way to go JK!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: John Kerry, George Stephanopoulos, John Edwards

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 11:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Kerry to Endorse Obama. Wow.

This was a shocker from a different point of view. When I was sitting down at CooBric, my CooBric cofounder Tony mentioned that Kerry was endorsing Obama for his run for the Presidency. Now that made me pause.

First thing I did is go to memeorandum and found a couple of articles. Kerry is going to announce at 11am in South Carolina - something hit me. That was where JK announced his campaign in early September 2003. I wonder if they will have the same ship in the background.

My question was "why?" Not that I think Obama is a bad choice, but I thought maybe he would stay above the fray until more was decided. His work with Clinton and his running mate Edwards - I thought maybe some form of loyalty? But then I read and remembered a couple of things:

• Clinton piling on Kerry for his "get stuck in Iraq" faux pas
  From the AP article on Yahoo! News: "While Kerry has been close to Clinton's husband, the former president, he was incensed in 2006 when she chided him after Kerry suggested that people who don't go to school "get stuck in Iraq." Aides said Kerry meant to jab at Bush and say "get us stuck in Iraq," and that he didn't appreciate Clinton piling onto the criticism he was already getting for the remark.
• Kerry wanting to be a "kingmaker"?
  JK has been fighting for Democrats for the past four years, building on his 3M member email list and continuing the fight to generate interest amoungst the faithful. He has raised incredible amounts of money for many Democratic causes - and candidates. Is this another way of him using his resources to help another? Certainly.
• Kerry and Edwards did not agree on giving up the fight
  I was reading the book "Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen" and learned that the night the details were coming out about the voting discrepancies in the battleground states and how Edwards wanted to fight on. It was Kerry (according to the book) that decided otherwise. After seeing both of them together in Florida and other places, it was a surprise that he did not make any endorsement.

I am pleased to see JK back in the game - and offering his help to any candidate. That is one of the things I truly like about JK - he is trying to help and do his best. His support for Obama is his way of contributing to the discourse - and to help get America (and the politically sensitive) engaged.

Tags: John Kerry, Barak Obama, Campaign 2008, Endorsement for Obama

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 10:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The most important issue in deciding the Presidency?

Sorry, but this one was too funny to ignore (from the Onion News Network):

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 5:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Obama's success a combination of factors...

Watching the returns with the DL21C this past evening, I wondered why Hillary Campaign did not turn out the voters that she needed.

Boy, it was COLD out there!
On every television news program this morning, as well as various websites, there was a constant drumming of "the incredible turnout of the youth vote". In an article by CBS News, I read:

In a night of record turnout for the Democratic caucuses, Obama and his message of change captured the vote of the first-time caucus-goers, as well as the votes of young people and political independents.

Well over half of those attending the Democratic presidential caucuses - 57 percent - were attending their first caucus ever, and their choice for the nomination was Obama, with 41 percent support. Hillary Clinton received only 29 percent of first-time votes, and John Edwards trailed with 18 percent. (Among those who attended a caucus previously, Edwards - an Iowa caucus veteran from 2004 - won with 30 percent of the vote.)

It was among young caucus-goers, however, where Obama truly carried the evening. Attendees under 30 voted 57 percent for Obama, compared to only 14 percent for Edwards and 11 percent for Clinton. Among Gen X-ers - 30 to 44 year-olds - Obama received 42 percent to Edwards' 21 percent and Clinton's 23 percent.

In contrast to Obama's strong support among the young, Edwards and Clinton appealed to older voters. Edwards won Baby Boomers with 31 percent, to 28 percent for Clinton and 27 percent for Obama. Clinton handily won the senior vote with 45 percent of those 65 and older, compared to 22 percent and 18 percent for Edwards and Obama respectively.

One of my friends pointed out that the weather this past weekend was 7 degrees Celsius - and last night, was closer to 2 degrees C. Heck, on Weather Underground today, I got a bit of a chuckle when I looked up the Des Moines, IA weather and it said, "Today is forecast to be Much Warmer than yesterday." So, from this simple read, I would assume that senior citizens in Iowa more than likely stayed home, nestled in the warmth of their homes.

Add to the fact that, with the January 3rd primary being just before student return for college, that would mean that Iowa students are spread out around the state (supposedly with their families), while out-of-state students are returning to the college towns, which would normally be chockful of other Iowan resident students. So, with a spread of students in all of the counties, it is not a surprise that a student vote would be quite impactful.

A Lesson from 2004
In 2004, Kerry's upset victory could more than likely be attributed to the desire for change as well, but I would harken it to the fact that many spoke about in the days following: he was considered the other caucus-goers second choice, if their first choice did not garner enough votes in the first round of the caucus. As reported in Talking Points Memo, Obama courted voters to go to the caucus and make him "your second choice, although you are wiser making me your first". When Kucinich and (potentially) Richardson did the "viability dance" (and not sure what happened with Biden and/or Dodd), the idea that the courtship of other, non-viable candidate support may have been incredibly successful by the Obama campaign.

Is this a mandate from the "voters"?
Sorry, but I do not think so. Last night is a reflection the Obama message and their field organization, coupled with the weather (what if it had been warmer and the senior citizens came out in even greater numbers), coupled with the "second choice" option, coupled with the distribution of the youth vote across Iowa (instead of centered at their institutions), I think we might have had a different outcome last night. So, while Iowa makes Round One for Obama, I wonder how New Hampshire turns out in five days.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Campaign 2008

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 10:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Which horse am I supporting? None of the Above...yet.

For the past two months, I have been traveling around the States and recently out of the country, and I could tell that we were coming close to the Primary Season. Not simply because my google Reader was inundated with vitriol over one candidate saying something bad about another, but the increase in discussion amoungst my friends both here and abroad. Funny thing - everyone that asks me the question gets pretty much the same response:

None of the Above

You know, when the race started out 18 months ago, I was thinking - Gov Bill Richardson. Now, there's a man with a record and a point-of-view I could agree with....until I started hearing him extol his own virtues again, and again, and Again, and AGAIN. Something about the concept of discussing his resume over and over again led me to ask about his vision over the other candidates. But all I can remember from his speeches is "I am the only candidate here whose resume has...."

Then I took a look at John Edwards. Now here is a man whom I am enthused about with his focus on the common man (person, if you will) and a real touch. He has a terrific style about him and he is more grassroots than anyone else I have seen. But I was there in 2004, watching him with JK (I have this photo of the two of them after a speech in South Florida that showed how these two men had become good friends in the midst of the war they were in) and his own speeches were amazing. And he is the real dog in this fight - willing to push for visibility of real issues. But, something still does not gel (and we are not talking about his hair). Not sure how to put my finger on it, but it arises from experience in managing large organizations and from a "transformation" in terms of views and ideas. But I would say that his campaign, I am intrigued by.

Senator Obama - I am not sold yet. From my viewing, he reminds me of the difficulty JK had when presenting his strength on TV. I hear he he is arousing on the stump (as others have seen), but something seems to be missing. I can not put my finger on it - almost something like gravitas is missing. I completely respect his intellect and his desire to bridge the gap. But something has not caught for me with his campaign - something like the discussion I remember having with a friend of mine at Kerry who talked about the moment when the candidate realized that they were competing for the Presidency, not just playing the candidate. It is a moment where you see, as my friend Marcus would tell me, that the candidate was Presidential material - not just my perception of he (or she) being Presidential material. Senator Obama has not hit this yet, IMHO.

And as for Senator Clinton - whew. This is a toughy. I have been impressed with the efficiency and professionalism of her campaign (the number of people women I have referred to her campaign office is astonishing) and the way it has been run - in some ways, I only wish the Kerry Campaign had Mary-Beth Cahill a whole lot sooner. But, I am not an avid Hillary supporter like a number of my political friends are at the moment. I , like a lot of Americans am waiting to see what happens - and will make my choice when I have to.

As most Democratic operatives know, I will support whomever becomes the presumptive Democratic nominee since I am so tired of a Republican Administration and want to change the direction of our future. So no matter who wins the Democratic nomination, I will more than likely vote Democratic....unless one thing occurs:

Mayor Mike Bloomberg gets in the race.

I have been contemplating this for the past 18 months and, while I normally vote straight Democratic, there are other issues that I have been contemplating, especially when I take a worldly view. And, I am sorry, the issues facing the American people in the coming 4, 8 and even 12 years are far greater than partisan politics.

But, like everyone else in the nation who is watching the event in Iowa, I am wondering what happens next.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Mike Bloomberg, Campaign 2008

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 8:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Sen. McCain does ashes and saccloth on the Daily Show

Got home this evening and turned on the TiVo to watch the Daily Show tonight and watched Sen. McCain chatting with John Stewart. And, funny thing is, I have almost the same commentary from my former post.

Let me start with: All I can say is, "OMG!" What the? It was a strange and surreal friendly banter between Stewart and Senator McCain. I have not known many Naval officers in my life, but the verbal engagement style was strangely familiar. Haven't I seen this performance before? Almost down to the hand motions and the vocal intonations.

This time (he said it was his tenth), McCain was a lot more congenial - I guess when you have dropped in the polls, you come back to earth with your thoughts and convictions. This time around, we ignored the Iraq issue and had a nice talk about the Iowa Straw Poll and other candidates. It was a "nice" interview, definitely a more entertaining one. But, when will we see other candidates show up and give their real opinions?

Tags: John McCain, Campaign 2008, The Daily Show, John Stewart

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 10:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Florida changing to January 29th...

Reading the local and national papers, see that Florida has decided to change the date to January 29th for the primaries. All that is left to be done is have Governor Charlie Crist sign off on the bill to finalize this move.

I have seen various blogs wringing their hands over this (e.g. see Chris Bowers at myDD here and here), suggesting this is a Republican power-grab since the Republican Party would be "in control" of a major "swing state" in effecting the outcome of the political process. For me, I am still in favor for a number of reasons:

1. Florida Democrats will, in time, reassert their muscle over the entire state as the National Party begins to spend more time there. As in Iowa and New Hampshire, the residents of those states take the decision of selecting a President very seriously. And, as one notes, more contemplative the effort, the more likely Democratic it becomes.
2. Florida is known as a microcosm of the United States - almost every major population center in the US is represented in Florida. Retirees and their relatives all tend to move into Florida and settle in the general areas. IMHO, within ten years, it will be Florida - not Ohio - that will be the "canary in the coal mine" as to who will be elected President.
3. Florida's influence will exceed its "ATM status" - as a Florida resident, I have been dismayed and hurt at how the Federal government has shortchanged Florida residents in areas of infrastructure, school funding, economic support. As a native Floridian, I want to see the government make some structural changes that will be needed, especially with the growth of population and the potential for dangers in the coming years (read: hurricanes). By being one of the important bell-weather states, the Federal government will be required to truly focus and deliver on their promises to the state.

And, for the harbingers of doom, maybe Michigan will move their primary up as well. So be it. This process has been stacked so poorly against truly making a statement before, we will have to see change happen to address status quo.

While I may not have voted for you, Governor Crist - you have my support for signing this bill.

By the way....did anyone notice that Florida legislators voted out the "touch-screen" voting machines? Way to go legislators!!!

Tags: Florida Primary, Governor Crist, Campaign 2008, Jeremy Ring

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 10:02 AM

Sen. McCain on John Stewart....what the?!?

Got home and turned on the TiVo to watch the Daily Show tonight and watched Sen. McCain chatting with John Stewart. All I can say is, "OMG!" What the? It was a strange and surreal mano-y-(somewhat) mano between Stewart and Senator McCain. I have not known many Naval officers in my life, but the verbal engagement style was strangely familiar. Haven't I seen this performance before? Almost down to the hand motions and the vocal intonations.

Not sure Sen. McCain should have been on the show - Stewart was operating at a high, and the Senator seemed to defensive and aggressive - all at the same time. It was an interesting dance I saw - a person who wants to be seen as against the efforts that brought us to this point in Iraq (criticising the "architect of the war"), but believes (IMHO) that staying the course is the best, most correct course of action. From his point-of-view (and many other Repubs), it seems as though staying the course without a plan (aside from letting the General do his job) is the correct course of action.

Open to the discussion, but not pleased with how we got here
While I have never been a proponent of the war (I used to argue with my Sephardic family members against the run up to the invasion), I can understand the logic presented. If General Abizaid is going to accomplish the effort of nation building (which former Governor George W. Bush claimed we would never do in the Presidential debates of 2000), then having the Sword of Damocles (read: pending timetables) will not help accomplish the task of bringing peace to the region. McCain's claim is that we have brought this on ourselves (the poorly architected plan for the invasion), but it is our obligation to clean up the mess we have brought ("In for a penny, in for a pound") to the region and the world.

This is what I fear - we have spent $420B in the running of this war as of the time of this writing (thank you National Priorities Project), the money that could have easily been spent on so many other things - including money spent to effect change in the region through economic support and largess. I do not want to think about how much this could have impacted our lives here in the US, let alone to the planet. The challenge is when you look at this expenditure, there is a feeling of "was it for naught?" Do we treat it as a sunk cost and get out, or do we stick it out - get behind the idea of staying for the long haul and push forward for a resolution where we mediate and maintain the civility while the opposing parties work it out?

The consequences of leaving will be expensive, cumbersome and potentially damaging - after our many mistakes in the region. Staying in the mire that is this "war" feels like being a battered wife in a bad marriage. But leaving, just when the efforts might be providing some return, almost feels like we are getting out just on the brink of bringing the issue to a successful closure. And with the press stoking the flames on whomever is watching (and how the political wind is blowing at whatever time), the facts are not clear - and we seek competent leadership. Can someone show us that they are a true leader and accomplish the task with the confidence and authenticity that we as Americans crave?

Sen. McCain - you did not make the case in a compelling fashion - and left me somewhat concerned. While I got the gist of your statements, I was less that impressed by the delivery. Truth is better served without aggression and bluster.

Update April 26th: thanks to Michael Weiss on Slate.com for the link to the site (and thanks for the correction!). And appreciate that he captured the conflict that resided in the show and my thoughts on the issue.

Tags: John McCain, War In Iraq, Campaign 2008, The Daily Show, John Stewart

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 6:06 AM

Florida moving on up...

I go to bed with one thought and awake to another. Reading the New York Times, I saw the following article on Florida's work on moving the date of their primary:

The Senate is taking more time to study the pros and cons, said Senator Jeremy Ring, a Democrat from Parkland who is sponsoring a Senate version of the proposal.

Still, Mr. Ring said the Senate would most "likely" endorse the leap to Jan. 29 by the time the legislative session ends in May. The Senate’s current bill calls for moving the primary to Feb. 19, but Mr. Ring said that date was serving as a placeholder while lawmakers debate the issue.

"Right now it looks like Jan. 29 would be more favorable," he said from Tallahassee. "One thing you can be sure of is that Florida will be relevant during the primaries."

Jeremy is a powerful force when it comes to his vision - I was proud to work with him in his run and think his vision on building up the back-benches for the Democrats is important. This move to bring the Florida primary up will increase Florida's influence in the process, one I also think is long overdue.

Here's to wishing the State Senate well in making the decision.

Tags: Jeremy Ring, Florida primary

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 3:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Vilsack to step out of the race...

Across the wires:

Vilsack to end Democratic presidential bid - USAToday
Democrat Vilsack to drop out of 2008 race: sources - Reuters
Vilsack Drops Out - NYTimes

While I understand the reason (unable to raise the $20M initial anty), I am saddened the situation that forces him to making this decision. As the pioneer in starting his campaign first this season, Governor Vilsack did a wonderful job making a splash for reaching out and building excellent connections with supporters through his online campaign (especially impressed with his efforts on sites like blip.tv). I wish him well in his other pursuits - and congratulations on a good effort.

On the campaign site evals - TomVilsack08.com was one of the better sites out there in the Democratic field and deserves a discussion on its merits. In the coming days, if the site is not shut down, I will do a brief run down of the strengths and weaknesses of the engagement practices his team executed.

Tags: Tom Vilsack, Campaign 2008, Democratic Primary

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 5:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Move it and you lose it...

Feeling the pressure of other states complaining about shifting the primary season, the national GOP warned the state parties not to move their primary dates - which included Florida. (See "GOP Warned Not To Move Up Primary") Granted, no one is asking me, but I think it is fair for Florida to move up the primary, if only to get it into the conversation before the election is decided.

After working a couple of campaigns in Florida (and growing up there), Florida is a microcasm of the United States - with every major population having a geographic region within the state. Why wouldn't it be appropriate for the state to have an influential primary? And, since the candidates are often making junkets to South Florida and other affluent parts of the state, it makes perfect sense to make it a place for primary election efforts. I wish Senator Ring's efforts success.

Tags: Florida Primary, early primary, Jeremy Ring

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 8:26 PM | Comments (0) |