This is Web 2.0000001

I posted too soon tonight, Obama just joined the Colbert Report too, and just added "manufactured political distractions" on notice....haha. What a great show!

Labels: Barack Obama, stephen colbert

Senator Hillary Clinton just made an appearance on The Colbert Report. Instead of an interview they had a staged back-and-forth act, which was amusing. It was a short-stop through but was great!

I reviewed some of the Interface book but really didn't find value in reading it, so instead of offering the full book review, I am opting to write instead about a recommendation to strengthen future classes.

Yesterday's candid conversation about the class was important to bring up my motivation to write this blog post. I echo Sean's comment that the class should offer more practical tools and less theory. The vast majority of the readings, besides possibly the MoveOn book and some of the IPDI reviews, offered solely theory. As an "Online Politics" course I hoped to learn more about practice and not just go over some of the available freeware tools. That's why I liked Michael Bassic's presentation. He showed us how a leading firm does targeted advertising.

So my general thought with the required readings was that it was too much. Part of the reason that I couldn't read Interface was that it was given to us while we needed to write our final papers. I admit that we could have spread some of the 600 page reading over the course of the semester, but as we had a week to read all of the other books, it was not possible. The vast majority of us are full-time workers and part-time students. We look at college as a second job and take it very seriously because we are spending money out of our pockets to attend. I read every page of every book and assigned reading up until Interface. I may still read Interface after the class concludes but to juggle reading a book a week, my work requirements, and my other school responsibilities...their was no way to adaquately offer the time needed to read a 600 page book of something that's just more theory.

I was able to attend all but the last two weeks of classes and that's because of work. The first class I missed was due to a report that I was pushing at my job. We released it on the day of class and due to my work we received over 250 press hits. The next week I was asked by my CEO to do the communication and PR for an event that brought Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Chairman George Miller, House Committee on Education & Labor, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA), Ambassador Alan Holmer, and U.S. Trade Representative Sue Schwabb. I've lobbied in the past, attended high-profile events but this was def. the most effective boost of PR that I've witnessed with key constinuents. Within hours from the event, I had added over 100 photos that I took onto Flickr. Within 24 hours, I had a recap of the event linked on our homepage.

So...off track, Senator John Edwards just showed up on the Colbert Report too. This has been a great show! He just said that he will support any candidate that makes him a spy, because that would be cool. I haven't seen Edwards in awhile so this is great getting him out again. Edwards is now doing the word of the day too.

It's late, I'm tired, I am done ranting. Bring on the Pennsylvania vote for my next blog post!

Labels: hillary clinton, John Edwards, nancy pelosi, stephen colbert

While watching the Chris Matthews show, David Brooks made the announcement on the "Tell me Something I Don't Know" feature that Hillary Clinton will be the next Governor of New York State. I hadn't even thought of her as a possible successor to Spitzer and now David Paterson, but it makes sense...especially if she wants to get some executive experience under her belt in-case she wants to run for President in 2012 or 2016. For all the nay-sayers that have claimed that being the First Lady isn't real experience, this would certainly change their opinion.

Hillary is also well loved with-in the state. I have contended, in this blog, and in general that if she doesn't win the election she will be the next Senate Majority Leader. Harry Reid hasn't been doing much and doesn't have the same brand name as Clinton. She is a very good Senator and would do a great job as Majority Leader. And I think she'll also be a very effective Governor, if she decides to run for that office.

I think Patterson is marred under the blotching of Spitzer's affair. He will not be able to win a re-election, no matter what happens between now and then. I was sure that a Republican (Bloomberg???) would win the gubernatorial race, but if Hillary goes for it she will win. Time will tell. Thank you David Brooks for giving me something to write about this week on the blog as I've been focusing most of my efforts on finishing the comparative analysis on Obama and McCain's websites for our final. I will post that as soon as its finished.

Labels: chris matthews, david brooks, david paterson, elliot spitzer, hillary clinton

Kind of lost track where we are in class, but I just finished reading the George Washington University's IPDI "Poli-Fluentials" study and saw one over-arching flaw in their methodology in defining who is a so-called "poli-fi." I agree that these are the untapped quiet army that helps elect or un-elect a candidate, but it their definition of finding one was too reliant on political donations. Here's my rant...

So, I took the "influencer" test and didn't just get three of the seven -- I got all seven. I am a super-duper influencer.

1) Made a speech on a political topic (check -- digital divide to the Organization of American States);
2) Wrote an article for a magazine or newspaper on a political topic (check -- written tons of articles on the Presidential elections, technology policy, immigration policy, corporate social responsibility, etc. for my own company and for Georgetown's student paper/online journal);
3) Was an active member of an advocacy group, that is, one that tries to influence public policy or government (check -- I lobby directly and indirectly every day at work and I am a member of Georgetown's Net Impact association, that tries to promote corporate social responsibility);
4) Wrote a letter or sent an e-mail message to any public official at the state, local, or national level (check -- communicated on several occasions with Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) via email; wrote testimony on the costs of higher education and how impacts young adults; and filed a letter with the FCC and Congress promoting net neutrality/ not to mention I applied for the U.S. Government's National Security Education Program fellowship);
5) Wrote a letter or sent an e-mail to the editor of a newspaper or magazine (check -- send letters to the editor to the New York Times, Washington Post, and several large blogs);
6) Attended a political rally, speech or protest (check -- organized getting out of class early via an online peteition to attend the Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) visit to Georgetown); and
7) Called a live radio or TV show to express an opinion on politics or public policy (check -- was going to attend a CNN taping on Middle East, but couldn't make it due to a work conflict...but the intent was there so I count it).

Yet, when I turned the page to take the Political questionare, I failed...what the f! I am a very political person. I blog about politics. I speak candidly about my opinions and open my mind to hear other people's side of the story (heck, I even watch Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace). But as two of the three questions/qualifiers to show if someone is political related to campaign donations...I was screwed.

As I've ranted about before in this blog (and on any pulpit given to me), I believe that their should be mandatory public financing for all public office campaigns and private/corporate money should stay out of it. My rationale:

1) my vote is more important than anything else I can give to a politician. They should only be looking to generate my vote, not my willingness to donate money. Each goal/action is very different and I would have different motives for either. I donate a lot of money every year for education, arts, and to the developing world. That is money that I consider used effectively. Spending money on a campaign donation does nothing to the economy, it is GDP, it doesn't create jobs. It gives a politician the ability to buy air-time on television...well the government should be getting it for free. The airwaves (spectrum) are owned by the people of the United States not the corporations that lease it. And it is in the best interest of the people to hear from any and all candidate running for a public office. Take capitalism out of politics and individuals like Governor Bill Richardson and Tom Vilack will have a fair shot to do what they want to do...make the country better.

2) removing money levels the playing field. Group decisions will allow those that should continue to the primary and general election, get there based on merit (and merit only).

3) removing money from capaigning removes special interests receiving unfair market power over representatives in exchange for favors or votes. Too much of politics has become campaigning. When the 109th Congress was in session for less than 100 days, the system is broken! Even though the 110th Congress is working more, their still isn't a ton going on because 2008 is an election year. Why is that? Shouldn't more be going on, because it is an election year. Shouldn't my elected officials in Congress (wait, I live in DC and only have one fake one) be working harder now to prove to me that they're worth re-electing. in the corporate world, that is how it is done. you bust your ass during bonus appraisal time.

So, back on track. Here's the test if I political:

1) Leading up tht November 7, 2006, election, did you perform volunteer work for a political candidate. (check -- I have helped/volunteered for some local poliicians in New Jersey and Pennyslvania and have written pledging my support to Rep. Rush Holt, my former Congressman in New Jersey who I feel best represents my personal interests)
2) Thinking back to the 2004 presidential election, did you donate money to any candidate, political party, or a group promoting or opposing a cause or issue (well, I don't believe in campaign donations to an individual or to a party but I donate money to charities and organizations that fund educational and development initiatives...sooo, not really -- strike one)
3) Leading up the November 7, 206, election, did you donate money to a candidate, political party, or a group promoting a political cause (see above).

I think the second and third questions should have been merged with the first. It could ahve been "Have you donated money or your time to any political candidate, party, or organization...." Well yes, I do. Thank you. May I have another. Question 2, "Do you explore political analysis that agrees and/or disagrees with your personal views on a weekly basis." Actually, I do that on a daily basis. And maybe question 3, "Do you consider the greater implications of policy for the long-term of America?" Yes, I know that policy may direct the short-term (and most policy is contigent on that because that is how legislators try to get re-elected) but every action has a long-term affect on our economy and or environment.

So, ya I am a super-duper influencer. I have friends on Facebook, Myspace, and people come to me to get my opinion on things...like politics. But apparently, I'm not political. News to me.

Labels: bill richardson, poifluentials, tom vilsack, U.S. Politics

Last week, I attempted a sociological/technological experiment to see if a targeted communication via online channels (RSS/social networks) are effective to foster action. The original plan was to try, over the course of three hours, three different communication tools to get a comment on my blog from a specific individual.

I followed the plan, but made two tactical changes. First, I gave more time for the response. And second, I opted against trying the direct email campaign because I thought that would be too direct of a tactic and against the diffused communiation strategy of Internet advocacy.

On the same week that I was conducting this experiment, I was reading Kurt Vonnegut's book, "A Man Without a Country." Vonnegut communicated the first rule of creative writing in this boko, which is to never use semicolons because they are hermaphorites and only prove the author went to college. Later in the book, Vonnegut used a semicolon and said that all rules are meant to be broken.

That's a great lesson to apply to how the democratic presidential campaigning is starting to become. What was originally a respeotful campaign season has turned into a one-sided contensious attack. For a party that is trying to bring the country together, this must stop now. Senator Patrick Leahy's comments this past week about encouraging Clinton to drop out of the race were not sexist, they were realist. She cannot win the race and is only hurting the party at this point. Obama will probably lose Pennsylvania next week, but not by a big enough margin to make a difference. Obama just spoke in front of 20,000 people at Penn State University and received the backing of Jerome Bettis and other PA celebrities. Clinton may have the establishment and the lead there, but his momentum is building and will close the gap.

As I've been saying throughout this blog, I am confident that the decision of Clinton/Obama will not happen until the convention...but is that good for the Dems and for America. Its good for the process, but not the country and certainly not the party. But, hopefully the Super Delegates don't break any rules...

It is 10:00 AM ET on March 26, 2008. To test this week's class on social networks and politics on the go, I am testing how long it takes from now to receive a posted comment on this blog post by the professor of the course. This test is to show how/if RSS feeds work to what is an assumed captive audience.

My plan:
10 - 12: Wait for response on RSS
12 - 2: Post a comment on Facebook (the professor is a friend on the network)
2 - 4: Email directly

Stay tuned for the results on the next blog post.

Yesterday Governor Bill Richardson endorsed Barack Obama to be our next President of the United States. Whatever "it" is that makes an experienced candidate a viable candidate wasn't there this year for Richardson, but through his endorsement Senator Obama gets a strong promoter and someone that can help deliver both the southwest and a great majority of the latino vote. With the possibility of a second vote in MI and FL, having this endorsement will certainly help Barack -- especially in Florida's latino community.

A second endorsement, which I found really interesting, was Obama's endorsement of the UNC basketball team winning the NCAA tournament. Although North Carolina's vote is still upcoming, this gesture shows just how likeable Obama is. Bush's likeability over Gore as a regular guy that a voter would just want to have a beer with also holds true with Obama. Most of the people I speak to feel the same way.

I had a long conversation with my best friend, who has never voted in an election, but has registered and intends to vote in November about Clinton and Obama. He knew a lot of the talking points but didn't necessarily have a candidate in-mind yet. After three hours of explaining why I am supporting Obama...he started to get more interested in him more-and-more. I feel I def brought one more vote in for him through this conversation.

Labels: Barack Obama, bill richardson, hillary clinton