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.

Emphasis is mine.

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

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

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:

(click to see larger image)

Performance-based Metrics
One of the things we were doing from November until January was trying to unlock the secrets of fundraising and online performance. I spent untold hours pouring over data and online donations to determine the potential success formula. We learned that more pages on a contribution page is bad (went from a 20% conversion rate to an 80% conversion rate), one page minimum on the forms, fewer elements are better (you do not need them to check off each line on the FEC disclaimer) and watched how the conversion rate (contributions/unique visitors and finished contributing/started contributing) improved. But nothing could prepare us for the avalanche that happened on the day after Iowa.

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

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

So this morning, I see an article in the International Herald Tribune which made me stop cold (please, note the pun)

As temperatures rise, a greening of Greenland

NARSARSUAQ, Greenland: A strange thing is happening at the edge of Poul Bjerge's forest, a place so minute and unexpected that it brings to mind the teeny piece of land that Woody Allen's father carries around in the film "Love and Death."

Its four oldest trees - in fact, the four oldest pine trees in Greenland, named Rosenvinge's trees after the Dutch botanist who planted them in a mad experiment in 1893 - are waking up. After lapsing into stately, sleepy old age, they are exhibiting new sprinklings of green at their tops, as if someone had glued on fresh needles.

"The old ones, they're having a second youth," said Bjerge, 78, who has watched the forest, called Qanasiassat, come to life, in fits and starts, since planting most of the trees in it 50 years ago. He beamed like a proud grandson. "They're growing again."

When using the words "growing" in connection with Greenland in the same sentence, it is important to remember that although Greenland is about four times the size of France, it has only nine conifer forests like Bjerge's, all of them cultivated. It has only 51 farms. (They are all sheep farms, although one man is trying to raise cattle. He has 22 cows.) Except for potatoes, the only vegetables most Greenlanders ever eat - to the extent that they eat vegetables at all - are imported, mostly from Denmark.

But now that the climate is warming, it is not just old trees that are growing. A Greenlandic supermarket is stocking locally grown cauliflower, broccoli and cabbage this year for the first time. Eight sheep farmers are growing potatoes commercially. Five more are experimenting with vegetables. And Kenneth Hoeg, the region's chief agriculture adviser, says he does not see why southern Greenland cannot eventually be full of vegetable farms and viable forests.

As someone who recently read and watched Gore's Inconvenient Truth, looks like the second canary is signaling...

In 2003, I came into politics with the enthusiasm as any American school kid does - fed the stories of civic action, civic duty and the thinking that with good intention and hard work, you could make change happen in the political process. And, from my experiences, I think for the most part, you can - especially in the primaries or on the edges where the elephants (and donkeys) will not risk to play. But when risk is mitigated, the older, wiser "A-team" comes calling, and the younger, less-experienced are layered, transferred or simply pushed to the edges. The process teaches you valuable lessons for both politics and life in general - if properly seen in context.

But being on the outside of the campaign cycle this year has given me a chance to see if the hub-bub about this being the Year of the Internet is all that it is cracked up to be. From my vantage point, I think the hype is not going to make up for the lack of connectivity that people think the Internet (and social networks) are supposed to bring.

Will Social Networks Impact The Election?
I was asked this question last year by my friend from Wired, after I finished with another campaign, and I can STILL heartily say - even with techpresident's MySpace, Facebook and YouTube counters - I believe that social networks will still NOT impact the coming 2008 election.

After watching Mayor Bloomberg on the stage and looking at the candidates - I have been forming a greater interest in seeing a candidate like him step up to the plate. Even if he does not take the steps to become a candidate, at least he is causing a conversation to be engaged.

One of the challenges the mayor put to us was to outline what we were looking for in a President. And interestingly enough, I have had some thoughts on this. In a later post, I promise to outline these thoughts and put it to my faithful readers as to what you think should be some of the qualities that become our next President of the United States.

Campaign Marketing Spend
In the 90s, with the dotcom era running rampant, companies would spend extravagantly to generate buzz int he ever increasingly injured public. Nary a day went by without a new press release trying to tout why this company was going to be the market definer in X, the global solution in Y - all fueled by the largess of the venture capitalists that were looking to increase the interest of the IPO public - who, at that time, was the individual investor.

Flash forward to 2007. This year, the Internet is playing big - where the news is served via feeds, the video is captured on mobile phones and a rumor can fly with the speed of a google web crawl (or references from your friends). With so much happening in the world (credit crunch, Iraq war, global warming) and the election still only three months away, how does one make their mark - if they can not spend on advertising? Via earned media.

Public Relations = Earned Media
In the tech world, we spend money so people can learn about our product through magazines, conferences, and (perchance) a mention on an influential page - where a blog, a newspaper or even a news-magazine. This is the concept of earned media - and what PR professionals get paid to do ALL THE TIME. When you have a piece of news that is good - you trumpet that - disregarding those niggly things called "details". But with an economist in the house, who is interested in profitability, we concern ourselves with those "details".

In finance parlance, it is called Cost of Goods Sold or COGS - which is usually what it takes to make and market the product. In widget companies - you think of this cost as what determines the margin - profit which is money paid for the product by the consumer minus the costs into selling it to the consumer. In movies, this cost can often be much higher than the box office receipts (think Godzilla) since the marketing effort is not simply for the product (in-theater, domestic movie launch) alone. They consider the expense a long-term investment - keeping the brand in the mind of the consumer when it hits DVD rental and sales and pay-per-view and so on.

So, what does this have to do with these numbers? Well, in politics, rarely do people spend time evaluating COGS since the only number that matters are the ones you can trumpet. While the candidates trumpeted the receipts and numbers, did you notice that the cash on hand number was not discussed? Or even how much they spent on fundraising.

What if I told you that for every dollar collected, a candidate spent two or three to collect it? What if the value of slowing momentum in a race was more important that the actual amounts collected - and you had the money to spend, would it be worth trumpeting?

The Heinz Method
A friend of mine told me the story about Senator John Heinz who, when first running, had a bunch of money behind him (his own) but needed to build a "base" to show others that he had support from "the people". So, as in all political campaigns, then Mr. Heinz spent a large amount of his own money to ask for donations - through fundraisers and particularly direct mail. While I do not have the numbers from that effort, you could see how someone could potentially generate X dollars in donations from Y supporters while spending 3X to 5X on acquiring those dollars and donors.

So, come October 15th - when the numbers come out from the campaigns, I am going to take a look at the CODC for the campaigns. And then I will see who really is generating "grassroots" support. Will anyone care then? Not sure. We may have moved onto some other major policy discussion.

In politics, the challenge for a candidate is making an efficient political "machine" - and the hype says Hillary has built it. Maybe yes, maybe no. If you are interested, check back on October 17th.

Tags: Campaign Fundraising, Campaign 2008, Presidential Campaign, Hillary Clinton, Obama Barack ]]> http://www.politicalgastronomica.com/archives/2007/10/impressed_by_th.html http://www.politicalgastronomica.com/archives/2007/10/impressed_by_th.html Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:17:38 +0000

Usually I have my laptop with me at major events, but I was revising my operating system at the time - and had to go with the old reliable pen and paper. So, my live-blogging was more in line with reporting than typical blogging. I will do my best to capture what happened last night at the Great Hall at Cooper Union and to capture the heart of what Mayor Bloomberg said.

Quick summary: I expect a February Surprise from Mr. Mayor. And a very pleasant one at that.

After the break, TB: Tom Brokaw's questions, MB: my parsing of Mayor Bloomberg's answers.

The following press release of her upcoming event in New York is her way of making things happen. Consider this a personal invitation from Dafna.

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 ]]> http://www.politicalgastronomica.com/archives/2007/08/sen_mccain_does.html http://www.politicalgastronomica.com/archives/2007/08/sen_mccain_does.html Campaign 2008 Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:28:13 +0000

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?

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]]> http://www.politicalgastronomica.com/archives/2007/05/political_brand.html http://www.politicalgastronomica.com/archives/2007/05/political_brand.html Political Thoughts Mon, 28 May 2007 15:08:46 +0000

Just read this excerpt from Al Gore's "The Assault on Reason". With this passage, I know I will be supporting his ideas:

Fortunately, the Internet has the potential to revitalize the role played by the people in our constitutional framework. It has extremely low entry barriers for individuals. It is the most interactive medium in history and the one with the greatest potential for connecting individuals to one another and to a universe of knowledge. It's a platform for pursuing the truth, and the decentralized creation and distribution of ideas, in the same way that markets are a decentralized mechanism for the creation and distribution of goods and services. It's a platform, in other words, for reason. But the Internet must be developed and protected, in the same way we develop and protect markets—through the establishment of fair rules of engagement and the exercise of the rule of law. The same ferocity that our Founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the Internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic. We must ensure that the Internet remains open and accessible to all citizens without any limitation on the ability of individuals to choose the content they wish regardless of the Internet service provider they use to connect to the Web. We cannot take this future for granted. We must be prepared to fight for it, because of the threat of corporate consolidation and control over the Internet marketplace of ideas.

The danger arises because there is, in most markets, a very small number of broadband network operators. These operators have the structural capacity to determine the way in which information is transmitted over the Internet and the speed with which it is delivered. And the present Internet network operators—principally large telephone and cable companies—have an economic incentive to extend their control over the physical infrastructure of the network to leverage control of Internet content. If they went about it in the wrong way, these companies could institute changes that have the effect of limiting the free flow of information over the Internet in a number of troubling ways.

The democratization of knowledge by the print medium brought the Enlightenment. Now, broadband interconnection is supporting decentralized processes that reinvigorate democracy. We can see it happening before our eyes: As a society, we are getting smarter. Networked democracy is taking hold. You can feel it. We the people—as Lincoln put it, "even we here"—are collectively still the key to the survival of America's democracy.

Tags: Al Gore, Assault on Reason

The final panel of the day has Zack Exley and Mike Turk moderating a panel on this cycle's eCampaign Managers: Joe Trippi from John Edwards 2008; Christian Ferry from John McCain 2008; Mindy Finn from Romney 2008; Peter Daou from Clinton 2008; and Josh Orton from Obama08.

Mike: Discussing how the CIO ended up creating things to move on tech within business. Similar to campaigns - once someone has the insight into managing the implementation of technology across an organization - they have the responsibility of the increased performance through technology.

Zack: DeanTV - back in 2004 was a big deal. how the whole campaign going to ask for money - every big decision was coordinated with the campaign team. Joining the Kerry Campaign, we were in the basement, in a closet - it was not John Kerry talking, it was the "beer" (Ari-Rabin Havt and Zack in their own little hovel in the campaign office - my addition).

Trippi: the issue is about command and control structures. Campaigns have problems decentralizing campaigns. In the Dean Campaign, the Internet team was huddled in a small office. This year, integration of the web team within and throughout the campaign. Some of it is due to the toolset and the opportunities to impact across the landscape.

Four years later, we now have to manage YouTube, Facebook, eventful, MySpace - need to integrate with the rest of the campaign. Have to be involved with the net. Scheduling (though eventful) is being used to pull the campaign into interacting with the web.

Coming in late for live blogging...

Josh Marshall: input from the readers is key to everything you do. Sort of open source journalism. But use it in a highly mediated way. Talking Points Memo does not support comments - legacy concept (when he used to do HTML from the beginning). Josh got used to email communications and filtered/mediated. Very little user generated content.

Want to ensure quality content - best way editorial is the best way to highlight higher quality content versus wiki work that allows for user-generated. Started TPM back in 2000 - never heard of open-source journalism - he just responded to the positive feedback and it was not until 2004 that he started using the blog as a tool for mobilizing. It was the Sinclair Advertising effort that he made an effort and wanted to get things to happen and work with people to accomplish something. Did something similar with Tom Delay, Social Security and then the ball started to roll.

Moderator: reporter - it is your credibility, your name. As a politician - you are projecting an image. Then, suddenly you have an outsider making videos and comments that becomes associated with something outside of the mainstream.

Why is mySpace doing a two-state poll?

Jeff Berman (mySpace): political activity: Katrina, mid-term elections - after Impact Channel and the Presidential MySpace pages. Friend do have benefits in this community. Straw polls make sense - and the users desire it.

Question to Steve Urquhart - why are the electeds not allowing for transparency showing the bills that happen? The Republicans have crippled themselves with this issue.

Rep Urquhart - candidates are open during campaigns, after being elected are being closed. Understandable bills are needed. We need to clarify the neutral description supporting pro and con argument. people need to understand the arguments. Words really matter - and, instead of an or. Need to flesh-out all of the people. Need informed discussion.

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.

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]]> http://www.politicalgastronomica.com/archives/2007/05/florida_changin.html http://www.politicalgastronomica.com/archives/2007/05/florida_changin.html Campaign 2008 Fri, 04 May 2007 10:02:21 +0000 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?

And a letter from the President of Cooper Union:

April 16, 2007
Memorandum to The Cooper Union Community

Beginning early this morning, the Virginia Tech campus experienced a deadly assault by a gunman that resulted, in the words of President Charles Steger, in a tragedy of unspeakable proportions. Varying reports at this time have placed the number of deaths at between 22 and 32, along with 29 victims who were injured.

While this tragedy reverberates throughout the academic world, it is the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States. It transcends the boundaries of higher education and goes to the heart of our modern human civilization. I have taken the liberty, on behalf of our entire community, to write a personal note to President Steger to express our deep sense of sorrow, empathy and heartfelt condolences on this tragic event. I have also offered a helping hand.

While we ponder the senselessness of this event, I hope that you will all join me in focusing your hearts, minds and prayers on victims, families and friends who are suffering in the aftermath of the tragedy.

President George Campbell Jr.
The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art

Tags: Virginia Tech]]> http://www.politicalgastronomica.com/archives/2007/04/va_shootingsa_m.html http://www.politicalgastronomica.com/archives/2007/04/va_shootingsa_m.html Personal Thoughts Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:30:28 +0000 Just reading TPMmuckraker today and saw this article on the Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFPs) that were discussed in this article of the New York Times. What surprised me was the actual description of the device as seen here in this graphic (click on the graphic on the right) and my personal close experience with them.

Back in the late 80s/early 90s, I was a newly minted engineer from Purdue, seeking jobs in the engineering world. I was a CS/EE and was talking to a number of companies. One of my trips to a company was to Honeywell in Minneapolis where I was introduced to the Advanced Weapons Group. I spent the day with one of the engineers who offered me a glimpse into two new weapons they were developing for the US Government and how they needed a good controls engineer to work on them. While I forgot the first one, the second one is quite familiar:

"You launch the projectile into the air ABOVE the target in a very high arc. The projectile deploys a parachute and begins its decent, scanning the terrain like a mini radar system. Once it determines its target, an explosive charge occurs behind the material and the shaping of the charge causes it to deform into a mortar-like object. This will then plunge through tanks and other defenses quite easily."

I remember the picture of the six inch steel wall that had been pierced by the projectile and how the engineer commented on how the shrapnel of the projectile was even more destructive within the enclosed environment, killing all of the combatants inside.

Suffice it to say, I did not take the job offer.

Tags: Explosively Formed Penetrators, EFP

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.