Political Gastronomica : Political Thoughts

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

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

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

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:

Dear Chelsea,

I am sorry it has been a while since we last spoke, but I have caught wind of you in various places in London, Cambridge and New York - you style has improved with age and you look terrific. You are even more poised and confident that I saw back when you were a Sophomore back in the Cowell Cluster.

I saw the work you were doing at the end of the 2004 Campaign, we almost caught up in Florida when you were with the Kerry kids in Plantation, but I was out pounding the pavement and hanging up door hangers. But this season, I have seen so much of your work, it has been incredible. You are working tirelessly for your Mom and doing a great job. And normally, your recommendation (along with your Mom's record of success) might tip me into the Clinton Camp for today.

But, after giving it a lot of thought, I am more than likely going to cast my vote for Senator Obama. And there is no better way to sum up my thoughts that what Zephir Teachout has expressed:

Both Hillary and Obama are smart enough to be President. Both are temperamentally competent to be President. When it comes to past behavior, I have every reason to believe both will support and enable progressive legislation. So for me, the question comes down to moral leadership, the sense of possibility, and international leadership.

I want a President who is an extraordinary foreign leader, Commander-in-Chief, and voice for what is best in America in the world. This is not a question of likeability, but it is a question of character, or the moral spirit that Aristotle called êthikai aretai. Character is different than personality, but a persistent, deeply embedded structurally defining trait, embodied in words like wisdom (instead of intelligence), courage (instead of brashness), an intuitive relationship to justice and fairness. The metaphor of character is not the strength of impenetrable walls, but the strength in resilience, the capacity to maintain judgment and moral reasoning over the battering and humiliations of time.

I support Obama—proudly—because he has that difficult to describe, but not difficult to discern, quality of character. Flowing from this strength, his demands on us, as citizens, are genuine demands, not genuflections. When Clinton says that its "all about you," she means that she will work tirelessly to take care of us (which I believe she would, or pursue what she believed was the best path). When Obama says its "all about you," she means that unless we find that 5% of citizen leadership in our own communities, unless we organize to oppose kleptocratic and ogopolistic and environmentally ruinous behavior, we cannot transform this country, and, moreover, we cannot hold our heads high as true, self-governing, citizens.

I want a President who speaks—honestly—to what is best in us as citizens. We can be a stupid bunch, but we are not fools. Dishonest, sophist language—moral language used cynically—will lead us to use moral language cynically. Moral language used honestly, if it reaches just 5% of the population—moral demands on us to organize, empathize, and consider the public good, not just our own good, when making political decisions. Over time, character will out—ours and a candidate's, and we need someone whose character is not up for grabs.

The image I can't get out of my head, the image that drives my drives to South Carolina, my contributions, and my phone calls, is the image of Obama as our leader in the world. President Obama will not just speak to Iran, but to Kenya, to Pakistan, to Russia, to Hamas, and to the WTO. He can take on the way the UN is organized, the way we engage in diplomacy, and the scope of possibilities for international cooperation in an increasingly globalized and unequal world.

I know, from everything he has done in Illinois and before, that he is deeply comfortable with that most uncomfortable job of the President; maintaining and projecting moral commitments (not strategic commitments) while engaging with those who are completely opposed to you. When he visited Kenya two years ago—hosted by its leaders—he publicly urged those same leaders to grapple with corruption and ethnic division. With Obama at our head, we can finish the quartet of the American dream—Jefferson for freedom, Lincoln for unity, FDR for international freedom, Obama for international unity.

This is a position I think I could support. Last time around, it was Dean for the heart and Kerry for the head - and we choose JK. While the same could be compared to Obama and your Mom, I think that I could see Obama becoming the person that becomes the President that others envision for the future. Your Mom is absolutely amazing, and I believe that if she wins, she would be an exceptional leader as well.

Like your Dad, back in 1992, I see hope and inspiration when I listen and connected with Senator Obama. He brings that vision of a better tomorrow into view. Starting Day One, I think he will be the best President for these United States.

All my best Chelsea. Hope the hedge fund is not making you have sleepless nights. And say hello to your Mom.

Sanford

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

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 1:21 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

Uggh...travesty of justice

After a long silence, this last act by Bush has left me with a shaking head and sad heart. I worked hard to elect a real Democrat last cycle, and JK did not win. I hope that the travesty that is this Administration can be stopped.

Is this the Republican way? Lie, obfuscate, delay and play games - and then, at the last minute, get a "get out of jail free" pass? Someone, please tell me this is a dream.

Jeffrey Feldman, at Frameshop writes here:

BUSH COMMUTES LIBBY'S 30-MONTH PRISON SENTENCE, LEAVES $250,000 FINE, 2-YEARS PROBATION

What a shocker (yawn). President Bush announced, today, his decision to commute the 30-month jail sentence of criminal fibber and erstwhile best-boy to Dick Cheney, a.k.a. "I'll-show-you-my-rap-sheet-if-you-show-me-yours" Lewis Libby.

The pathetic aspect of this disgusting travesty--I mean the Bush Presidency, not the Libby case--is President Bush attempting even in this announcement to run a PR scam on the American public.

What is it this time? For some reason, President Bush--who has the power to commute a sentence for whatever reason he chooses--wants the American public to believe that he "weighed" the circumstances and arguments of the case and came to a sound conclusion--as if hidden in that brush-clearing head of his there lurks some kind of judicial mind.

Yeahright.

Is there anyone--anyone, that is, besides the terminally brainless Tucker Carlson--who actually believes that Bush plucked "I-know-all-the-dirty-secrets-that-can-bring-you-down" Lewis Libby from the iron jaws of jail for any other reason than, well...to make sure he keeps his lying mouth shut on the encyclopedia of felonies and crimes committed by Bush and Cheney?

Please, will Congress do the right thing?

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 5:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Political Branding 101: Differences

Just got this forwarded from my friend Azeem in London:

While this may not be standard communication practice, it was far too funny to not present. After so many emails and constant media impressions, just an exercise in understanding how branding works...in layman's terms.

Tags: Branding

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 3:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Keeping Personal Democracy personal

This morning, I got an email from an old friend of mine, Aldon Hynes, who made two interesting posts at Greater Democracy:

• Keeping Personal Democracy Personal
  where he talks about the migration of politics from the personal to the professional, where the operations of politics is about optimizing certain performance metrics, and
• Interaction and Interactivity
  where Aldon discusses the difference between "interaction" (where you respond to a stimulus given) and "interactivity" (where a conversation or dialog ensues between a grouping).

In reading his posts, I see a lament of the migration from a civic, personal contact to a business mentality of running a campaign. Considering the masses under nebulous demographic and psychographic metrics may seem cold and calculating, but the challenge of achieving the goals of campaigns is to win. And to win, the campaigns have little else to do but place bets on particular expenditures, rather than trying to be all things to all people.

In every campaign I have been a part of, there is always a major constraint that they have: money. While the assumption that volunteers for the candidate is "just around the corner", that is almost as funny as hearing that "there's gold in them thar hills", convincing the old '49ers that they should keep digging into the hills for that chance of finding the motherload.

In an archived post, which I never made public due to last cycle's issues, I wrote about being a campaign manager and the business of running a small campaign - especially one where resources are scarce and the opponent is entrenched. I promise to finally publish this post which should be instructive on how campaigns have to have a startup mentality in order to succeed - since the goal is to raise awareness with the individuals that can best bring about your success and find a way to fund your efforts, especially when you are a candidate who needs to rely on the support of others.

The challenge is to maintain a close relational contact with your supporters while keeping in mind that there is only 24 hours in a day, and you can only occupy one physical space at one time. Technology is meant to help enhance the ability of a person to communicate with a group of people, and allowing for some personalization of the communication to the supporters in the best way possible. Note, I did not suggest "converse" with all of the supporters, since people are limited with one mouth and two ears (or you could include two hands). But, by using technology to enhance the chance of communicating (e.g. John Edwards on twitter, every candidate on email and/or blogs, Chris Dodd and Tom Vilsack on video sites), the candidate (and/or his staff/surrogates) tries to keep the connection with the supporters to ensure the energy continues to flow.

I, too, will be attending the PDF - this year, for the first time, as a participant. This cycle has been difficult for various reasons (as some people know), but my affection for the art and business of politics still exists. No matter how difficult it can be, I believe that we will be able to create relationships through these technologies - in ways we have yet to understand. In the business world, I spend more time confirming with clients on how to work together online with their customers, considering the long-term value of a customer given the power that technology can give them. If it was not for Microsoft Outlook, Plaxo and/or google Calendar, I would loathe to remember every one of my friends birthdays. If not for the ability to blind cc my friends, I could not keep them up-to-date with my goings-ons. And if not for the ability of blogging and the easy publishing and syndication tools (thanks Dave!), I would not keep in touch with my friends in the blogosphere. Personal Democracy is about maintaining a connection with others - whether one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-one or many-to-many. In a later post, I will explain where I think we are heading in our technological evolution such that Personal Democracy can remain personal.

Tags: Personal Democracy, Personal Democracy Forum, Greater Democracy, Aldon Hynes, PDF2007

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 9:56 PM

Isn't this one for the history books...

Was talking with another friend and she pointed me to this amusing article from New Years Eve 2003 about political blogging in USA Today:

In the 2004 election, the boys (and girls) on the bus have been joined by a new class of political arbiters: the geeks on their laptops. They call themselves bloggers. Their mission: to remake political journalism and, quite possibly, democracy itself. The plan: to run an end around big media by becoming publishers on the Internet.

Not that it is overly informative, but it brings back a sense of the beginning of the trend from just over three years ago. Think what this cycle will bring.

And - added Mobile Democracy Blog to the blogroll yesterday - welcome aboard!

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 2:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Integrity - Lieberman style...now, I question

Just on Daily Kos today and saw this diary from Cenk Uygur drawing the rallying cry about how Senator Lieberman has forsaken his promises during the 2006 Election. In reading the post, and the original sourcing article from MSNBC, I was taken aback by what the Senator has done. As mentioned in the article,

Last year, when he was running for re-election in Connecticut, Lieberman was a vocal critic of the administration’s handling of Katrina. He was especially dismayed by its failure to turn over key records that could have shed light on internal White House deliberations about the hurricane, including those involving President Bush.

Asserting that there were "too many important questions that cannot be answered," Lieberman and other committee Democrats complained in a statement last year that the panel "did not receive information or documents showing what actually was going on in the White House."

But now that he chairs the homeland panel—and is in a position to subpoena the records—Lieberman has decided not to pursue the material, according to Leslie Phillips, the senator’s chief committee spokeswoman. “The senator now intends to focus his attention on the future security of the American people and other matters and does not expect to revisit the White House’s role in Katrina,” she told NEWSWEEK.

This is surprising since I have always felt that Senator Lieberman is the kind of person that will stand up for honor and integrity, especially when having to represent the weak and powerless. The insane cockup of the government's handling of Katrina (let alone Iraq) needs investigation. We spent far too much time on determining what President Clinton did or did not do with a particular intern, we spent far too little time on determining whether we should go into Iraq.

As an observant Jew, Senator Lieberman knows that every Jew has a responsibility to act in the manner that G-d wants the world to follow - to model the ideals that are right in this world. The Jewish faith has impacted the world in many ways, and as a leader in the Senate, he has a responsibility to think about the social impact of his decisions. Does he model the best in integrity....or does he model the social mores he is in? I hope he finds the compass once again and remembers that he has a social responsibility to the country, more than a friendship with a lame-duck President.

Tags: Joe Lieberman, political integrity, Hurricane Katrina

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 8:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Well...quite certain about my political compass...

This morning, I was reading one of my mailing lists, and found an interesting like (http://franz.org/quiz.html) which was a quiz published in USA Today years go to determine where one lies on the political spectrum.

Jessie Jackson	Ted Kennedy	Hillary Clinton	Bill Clinton	Colin Powell	George Bush	Jack Kemp	Bob Dole	Ronald Reagan
0	5	10	15	20	25	30	35	40

After a few minutes, and entering my thoughts, I found myself exactly where I thought I would be - between Hillary and Bill, and closer to Bill (14 points). Where do you lie?

Tags: Political Quiz, Liberal Rating, Conservative Rating

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 4:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

RootsCampNY - small but engaging

This afternoon, I decided to travel to Polytechnic University in Brooklyn for RootsCampNY. After walking into the schedule room, I saw a lot of die-hard eCampaigning organizers including Greg Heller, No Neck Noel (who coordinated this event), Aldon Hynes, Zack Exley, Liza Sabater and a couple of others. The "unconference" was interesting in the topics, but we were light - I think especially in lieu of the success of the election. All I can say is Noel and NOI did a great job setting it up at Poly. Kudos.

Tags: RootsCampNY

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 1:48 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

What's The Party For.....now?

One of my business partners, Rana Sarkar, is the founder of the Progressive North Forum in Canada and is preparing a conference in Toronto on October 20th with a question - "What's the Party For?" It is an interesting question - in this age of "distributed democracy".

One of the challenges that European parties (I am leveraging my experiences from England, mainly) is that they have difficulty because of the structure of their party. These parties are primarily membership driven - similar to other membership organizations, you pay membership dues to become a card-carrying member. But in today's world, where many people revel in the freedom of choice and wish to express their independence, how does a party attract new members, and not simply churn the ever smaller group of people, over and over again?

IMHO, I do not think the party is a dead, I think that parties takes a lot longer to evolve into a mechanism that can support the fast-paced, fickle nature of the electorate today. Empowered with inexpensive technology, an ability to create content at a whim, and express themselves across a wide audience - individuals are finding their voice, without the need of the party. But, as human beings, we often require some form of organization to show our allegiance to - to share in our goals and values. This is one of the many reasons for parties.

So, let us consider that parties do today. From my experiences, parties:

• Act as institutional memory - which is both good (learning from previous mistakes) and bad (keepers of conventional wisdom). By being "king-makers" and having a formulaic process, they tend to assure that everything has the same flavour, and interesting entries are appreciated, entertaining but also eventually discarded from the main body before the final decision is made.
• Act as the gatekeeper for fundraising - in most state parties, the party seems to be the aggregator of the large donors and most networked individuals, providing learned guidance to the party faithful on whom to contribute to. It is here where the party wisdom often is seen to bestow the mantle of succession on the appropriate candidate.
• Act as an organizing body - where the steady supporters and new volunteers are often brought to become involved in campaigns, especially around the time of elections. They hold training programs, manage data, and generally considered the keeper of the wisdom on the local, county or state field organizing.
• Act as event planners - truly, where would a party be without the convention for the faithful to gather, commiserate, and make decisions on the direction of the party? Newbies are given a show and restricted access, where the faithful enjoy the benefits of connection and longevity.

But the question still beckons - what is a party for now? Are the tasks above all that is necessary, or can they evolve into something that engages the growing younger electorate and become part of the life of the community?

"But we need a real organization..."
When I was at Stanford, one of the books that came out while going to grad school was Jerry Porras and Jim Collins' book, "Built to Last". After serving on a couple of campaigns and interacting with various party committees, I think that the structure of parties make it hard for them to change efficiently or effectively. Take a look at some of the metrics Porras and Collins uses to determine if companies were "Built to Last":

• Be a Clock Builder, not a Time Teller
  In US politics, people give credit to the Republicans for being better at building the clock ("framing the message") than the Democrats, whom, in the paraphrased words of Joel Klein, often seem to be trying to say everything for all people. In 2006, This year, the Democrats came out with a "unified message", but if not for my personal interest in knowing it, I do not think I would even be aware of it. Similar to the transient nature of telling the time, the message has yet to resonate with the public. In politics, being a clock builder establishes a base for the base, time-telling tends to play directly to the hands of the perception of transience. While it might be good for the press, time-telling is not something that people can get ahold of.
• Have a set of 'Core Values'
  Again, the Republicans seem to have this in spades, where the Democrats seem to get lost in the discussion of all of the parties interests and coming up with (what is positioned by the Republicans as) an incomprehensible set of "values". One of the learnings of the Porras/Collins book is that "Core Values" are something that everyone in the "company" follows and upholds. These values are not just a touchy-feely group of statements, they are the core values that help the "company" make the hard decisions of what works and what doesn't. They are the constraints that help people make decisions and prioritize what matters. What does this sound like to you?
• Preserve Your 'Core Ideology'
  The "Core Ideology" is based on the Core Values, but is more malleable to the time and "market". Does the party actually preserve the core ideology? And what is the core ideology of this time and date?
• BHAGs (Big Hairy Audacious Goals)
  Now here is where both parties tend to fall down IMHO. The BHAGs are determined, not by grand design, but by short-term goals - especially for the next election cycle. Consider that corporations back in the 70s and 80s acted like this - always working to hit their next quarter's numbers - which the Japanese demonstrated the strength of long-term thinking. Then in the 90s, when hitting short-term numbers became vogue again, for their perceived value as a reflection of long-term value, how did that end up? What were the last great goals that people got around and worked toward? Sacrificed for? Aren't parties meant to maintain these BHAGs?
• Have a 'Cult-Like" Culture
  Another interesting metric - when was the last time that the masses felt like the party was something they were proud to be a part of? Where others feel proud to be a member of? Aside from the different extremes or the party elders, how do the rank-and-file feel? As you get closer to the middle, how strong does the party reflect across the spectrum?
• Don't be Afraid to Evolve: Try New Things and Use What Works
  Hmmmm - now this is an interesting one. How soon did the parties take to new mechanisms? Look at the local, state and national parties. Where was money spent? How did new ideas, new technologies, new engagement strategies take place/take hold?
• Look Inside for your Top Management
  Now, in this case, I think parties are very much hit his metric - but I think that they stick far too close to the blood-line, instead of cultivating hybrids to engage in change. Let's take the Republicans and the Democrats - how has the top management within the parties grown? Is there a "farm league"? How do people rise through the ranks?
• Constantly Innovate
  Again, where does this lie in the parties? How often do you see change within the party apparatus?

From this accounting of the Porras/Collins metrics, parties do not look like mechanisms for long term stability. But, they do have value. Earlier, I accounted for some of their tasks - but what could they do for the future?

The 21st Century Political Party
For one, I would not remove any of the tasks above - they have a major responsibility to the existing membership and the keepers of the flame. But, they also need to do two major things:

• BUILD THE BENCH
  All parties should have the responsibility for building their teams - like any good competitive sporting team or global company, the strength of your party is based on the strength of the benches. And, if the party is not out cultivating new recruits to be part of the process, then the party will eventually whither and die from neglect - or be eaten alive by the opposing parties. Think of the Whigs - and their plight over 100 years ago.
• BUILD THE PROCESS
  By building the bench, you have to build the process - for training, for relevance, for involvement. In today's society, where does civic duty come? Where are the programs for civic involvement that engage others on a regular basis? Where do the actions coincide with others philanthropic efforts (like Habitat for Humanity or the United Way)? How can National Service be brought into vogue without the need for war?
• BUILD THE INFRASTRUCTURE
  In four separate occasions, I have met with parties - state and federal types - and discussed the need for infrastructure. Not buildings and roads, but technological infrastructure to allow for parties to provide relevant services to the empowered masses. Instead of keeping all the power in the hands of a few, provide the tools and the capabilities to supporters that can empower them to act on the party's behalf - and to take ownership over their actions. And, rather than being fearful of the risk, ensure that processes are in place that individuals take responsibility for their actions and reduce the impact on the party. Offering empowerment can be a double-edged sword - the question is, are parties ready to experiment with the power of distributed democracy?

Tags: Political Parties, Distributed Democracy, Rana Sarkar, 21st Century Politics

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 12:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack