"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?

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?

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.

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

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

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

| View | Upload your own

Definitely worth a read.

Tags: Millenials

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.

A federal investigation has concluded that U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman's 2006 re-election campaign was to blame for the crash of its Web site the day before Connecticut's heated Aug. 8 Democratic primary.

The FBI office in New Haven found no evidence supporting the Lieberman campaign's allegations that supporters of primary challenger Ned Lamont of Greenwich were to blame for the Web site crash.

Lieberman, who was fighting for his political life against the anti-Iraq war candidate Lamont, implied that joe2006.com was hacked by Lamont supporters.

"The server that hosted the joe2006.com Web site failed because it was overutilized and misconfigured. There was no evidence of (an) attack," according to the e-mail.

And the shame of it all was the negative publicity and slander on Lamont Internet Director, Tim Tagaris. At least in some circles, he finds some relief.

Hey Tim, I know how you feel.

And, one comment - I think I said something to this effect back in August of 2006 where I assumed the site was overloaded based on the facts form the blogosphere. From that post:

My guess is that the server was having problems because shared servers are reknowned for having limited number of web clients to handle traffic. No amount of bandwidth can address not enough web server processes to handle the enormity of requests.

Tim - more power to you.

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

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

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.