A different kind of campaign

Much has been made of how Barack Obama has change the way politics is waged in this country.  I don’t believe it, at least not yet.  Yes, Senator Obama’s campaign has used internet to create a significant base of donors.  They have launched a social network for the campaign and delivered tools to tens-of-thousands of activists around the country, not just permitting but encouraging them to organize on their own to advance the campaign cause.  They have talked about hope and collaboration and breaking down political barriers.  But, at the root of his campaign against Senator Clinton (who I support), the same basic political tactics ruled the day.  The tone and rhetoric of his campaign were significantly different than any in my lifetime (and certainly different than Senator Clinton’s tone and rhetoric), but his overall effort was far from complete.
With the primary campaign all but over and Senator Obama inching closer to securing the Democratic nomination, his opportunity to change politics is about to begin.  I expect him to take it.  Seize it.  Use the platform he has managed to secure for himself and his followers to transform this nation in a serious way.  Win or lose, we should come out of this presidential campaign a better nation than when we entered it.  That may be a big burden to shoulder, but Barack Obama has asked for it, and I expect him to take it on.

There are hints that this will happen, but I am still skeptical.  The campaign has launched a 50-state voter registration effort… which will either serve to inspire and increase participation in our democracy, or become one of the largest, most influential political machines in history (or possibly both).  There was talk in this morning’s paper that Senator McCain and Senator Obama were open to the idea of unmoderated debates or joint forums around the country… their barnstorming will either raise the level and quality of the debate about the issues, or serve as another opportunity to paint one camp or the other as unwilling to  engage in a new form of political theater.  What about new policy solutions, instead of a debate over whether the existing ones work or not (they don’t)?  What about a visit by the candidate to all 50 states between now and November (including Alaska and Hawaii), even the ones he isn’t likely to win, because a vibrant democracy comes from participation everywhere, not just the states that are likely to tip the balance in your favor.  And beyond the campaign, if Senator Obama is truly committed to his rhetoric of change, I expect him to start now - not wait until he is elected.  Senator Obama should ask his donors, particularly those who have maxed out, to support worth charitable causes and volunteer their time to help not only his campaign but the neediest in our communities.  I want to see him use his sophisticated technological platform to direct his donors to help UNICEF raise money for the survivors of the cyclone in Myanmar.  I want to see him use his extensive network of activists to solve some of the most vexing problems in our society, instead of waiting for Congress and a new President to tackle it.
Don’t get me wrong - I am a good Democrat and I will support Senator Obama either way.  I will vote for him.  I will donate.  I will tell my friends to do the same.  And I will challenge those who support Senator McCain to explain to me why his Presidency would not be an extension of the awful failures that George W. Bush heaped on us.

But, I want more.  I want more than politics.  I want more than speeches.  I want more than millions of small contributions and stories of people who are inspired. I want real change.  I want improvement.

I want a different kind of campaign. And that starts now.

The Politics/Technology Discussion Is Going In The Wrong Direction

(This is cross posted on the EchoDitto SXSW blog) 

I have been in politics all my life. For most of that time I have been very optimistic about the potential for politics to have a positive impact on the world. And that optimism increased as I saw the potential for using technology to educate, engage, and mobilize audiences increase and become more integrated. It’s a fairly simple equation in my mind. Better politics help better people get elected and better people do a better job running the country (at whatever level they were elected - local, state, federal, etc.). And technology can help facilitate that on many different levels.

Of late, however, I have been down on politics — I am frustrated that the media and various other people talk about all the innovation and evolution in our political process, but the reality is far from that. I am saddened by the fact that our government fails to serve most of our population well, and some people not at all - and that tools are available to help expand the reach of government, but those in power don’t seem interested in using them in any meaningful way. I’m cranky about the fact that so many people look at technology as the solution, when there are obviously so many more more important factors.

Politics is exciting to watch and occasionally fun to participate in, but its not fulfilling its role in our society right now. Worse than that, our democracy is broken. And the rate at which change is occurring so that technology can play a meaningful role in fixing these problems is painfully slow.

What made me so frustrated today?
I was at a panel discussion this morning with a group of very smart political operatives from the internet space (several of whom are friends of mine). They were talking all about Facebook (one of the panelists was from Facebook) and user-generated videos that appeared on YouTube, list building and GOTV. Frankly, there wasn’t any new ground broken in the discussion.

So, I stepped up and asked the panel if they felt the shifting nature of politics, which increasingly recognizes the role of the community and gives some (though still not very much) voice to the grassroots community will spill over into better functioning of government, greater access for citizens, and an increased likelihood of real solutions being found for the problems facing our society. I think it was a good question.

The responses were not very good. Panelist answer ranged from “government doesn’t understand technology and has no interest in using it that way” to “the campaigns haven’t really achieved anything of significance, so there isn’t a model to transfer over to the operation of government anyway.” (Those aren’t direct quotes, FYI…)

So, I’m frustrated on a couple levels. First, I’m frustrated that the media (and people at a panel like the one this morning) obsess over the ‘paradigm shift’ happening in politics, when really very little, if anything, has changed at all. Second, I’m frustrated that nobody in the political space seems to look past the end of the campaign cycle to the job that ultimately their candidate/party will have to do when elected. I was in the political space for a long time (and am not that far outside of it now) so I understand the mentality, but I got into politics with the goal of helping improve our society and I feel as if the industry is just navel gazing far too much about this technology stuff. And lastly, I’m frustrated that you can get so many smart people together on a panel, or at a conference like SXSW for that matter, and not even begin to scratch the surface of the serious issues that need addressing.

I’ll keep hoping to find a panel, or a group of political professionals, who want to realize the true world changing opportunities that technology offers and how to actually improve our society.

Substance and the 2008 Elections

Since the Presidential primary contests began almost two years ago, I have been calling for a substantive debate of the issues.  I told my friends, my family, and anyone who would listen to me that the key to victory — especially for the Democrats — was to articulate (and discuss, in detail, with the voters) real solutions to the challenges that are facing our society.

There are many issues: the war, the economy, education, the environment and climate change, various social issues, etc. that the candidates aren’t talking about in any depth.  Their websites only host a few paragraphs about any issue.  Their speeches gloss over the important points.  The press hasn’t called them on it.  Hillary Clinton (full disclosure: I am a supporter and donor to Senator Clinton’s campaign) has done better than Barack Obama, but both have fallen well short.

This week, the New York Times agreed with me.  The editorial board wrote:

… it means that there is still a chance to take this campaign and elevate it, finally, to a serious debate about major issues. That is what American voters deserve. And that is what Democrats must do if they hope to break the Republican grip on the White House.

And then this…

For Democrats, changing this dynamic is all the more urgent because Senator John McCain has now won the Republican nomination, and he visited the White House on Wednesday to collect the dubious blessing of Mr. Bush’s endorsement. Mr. McCain is now free to enjoy the food fight knowing that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be weakened. He can now hone his attack for the fall.

And this…

The quality of this contest has not reflected that interest or the candidates’ intellect. Instead of a serious debate about trade, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have engaged in a depressing fit of pandering to voters in economically troubled Ohio. They tripped over each other in rushing to attack the 14-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement rather than offering voters honest answers about what government can and should do to help them adapt to globalization’s challenges.

And this…

Even if their differences on Iraq are negligible, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton should still debate the issue, explaining how they plan to bring American troops home and contain the chaos…

Instead of talking seriously about reforming health care, each side has run attack ads distorting the other’s proposals. There has been some discussion about taxes, the home-mortgage crisis and the slowing economy — but mostly when the candidates are asked about these issues during debates.

And finally this…

Nearly a third of the 50 states have yet to hold a nominating contest. Before they do, we’d like to hear fewer character attacks and a lot more discussion of the nation’s many problems after nearly eight years of failed Republican rule. That is the Democrats’ comparative advantage. They should start to use it now.

Voters have an important responsibility in our country and they take their role seriously.  While some voters choose based on personality, I feel confident that most voters decide who to cast a ballot for based on the issues.  We all believe something, and have opinions about how to tackle the tough issues (even when we don’t fully understand them) and we look for the candidate that shares, or at least represents, our beliefs.

So far, the candidates haven’t given us much substance to use in making our choice.  There are many months left (it seems) in the Democratic primary contest, and more months beyond that when John McCain will debate Senator Obama or Senator Clinton further.  Let’s hope the candidates finally listen to me, and the New York Times, and start talking turkey.

Email and the Presidential Campaign — ClickZ Comments

I was quoted in an article for ClickZ today talking about how the Clinton and Obama campaigns are using email in their GOTV efforts in Texas.  Here is a quick excerpt:

Still, the fact is e-mail recipients haven’t all made up their minds. By neglecting to discuss issues in recent e-mails to Texas voters and distinguish one candidate from the other, both campaigns may have taken support for granted.

“It assumes that everybody who signs up for the e-mail list is a supporter…and in a closely contested race that people aren’t looking for reinforcement of why they should vote,” said Reich. “Campaigns do themselves a disservice by thinking that e-mail in particular is not going to fall into somebody’s inbox who needs more than just a reminder to find their polling place.”

You can read the whole article here.

I think the campaigns have missed a significant opportunity to use email to reach and engage prospective voters and talk about issues that are important on a local level.  The content of the emails could have been more focused, more practical, and generally more inspiring.  There are so many advancements in the use of technology to support grassroots politics this year it surprises me that email was overlooked.
There is still a lot of campaigning to do this year, so maybe the campaigns will learn their lesson.

2 Days of Riding For 4 Years Of Hope

I walked into a Starbucks this morning in Cambridge and saw a flyer that read “2 Days of Riding For 4 Years Of Hope.”  It was promoting a bike ride across Massachusetts to help raise money for Senator Obama’s campaign.  When I pointed it out to my colleague, Nicco, he said “Oh my god, he’s going to win” — because the Clinton campaign isn’t organizing, or inspiring, anything even remotely this creative.

I am a Hillary Clinton supporter, and donor, and fully believe she is the better candidate.  I still believe she can, and will, win the nomination.  But, it is painfully clear to me right now that Senator Obama’s team is out-thinking and out-maneuvering Senator Clinton’s team.  I never thought I would see the day when any team beat the Clintons at campaigning.

Presidential Announcements v2.0

I had this really long, eloquent post written about how all the candidates are using the web to launch their political campaigns.  I hit the wrong button and the whole thing was lost.  I won’t try to reconstruct the entire thing, but let me try and summarize a couple of the key points.

John Edwards announced his campaign for the Presidency with a web video.  Barack Obama used a web video a few weeks later to do the same.  And now Hillary Clinton, who announced her intention to run for President on Saturday, has used a video on her Website to break the news.  It seems you can’t be a candidate for President - at least not a Democratic candidate - without launching your campaign on the web.  (Memo to Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, who announced their candidacy’s on the Sunday Morning Talk Shows — you might want to check to make sure your announcement registered at all, or consider posting the video of your appearance on YouTube to make sure people take it seriously).

Both the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post used Senator Clinton’s announcement to analyze the role that the web will play in the upcoming campaign.  The LA Times offers a brief history of the highs and lows of internet campaigns over the past decade, writing:

The Internet’s power both to make and break politicians has been vividly demonstrated in recent years.

In 2004, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean jumped from political obscurity to grab the front-runner’s position in the initial stages of the Democratic race largely on the strength of the interest and fundraising he generated online.

Last year, Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) watched his reelection campaign — and his hopes of emerging as a prime contender for the GOP presidential nomination — go down in flames after a video clip of him addressing a young man of Indian descent as “macaca” made the rounds on the Web.

Barely a factor in campaigning 11 years ago when Clinton’s husband won reelection as president, the Internet has become an integral part of the political landscape, with every major candidate fielding a website and seeking to create a virtual community around his — or her — campaign.

But with the recent advent of YouTube and other video-sharing sites, analysts said the most intriguing aspect of the evolving use of the Web may be as part of an immense game of political “gotcha,” in which campaigns seek to catch opposing candidates off-guard and off-message, as happened to Allen.

By contrast, the Washington Post took more of an editorial stance on what makes for good web video in politics, offering this comparison Clinton, Obama, and Edwards:

Unlike other candidates (coughBarack Obamacough), whose videos might have been produced by a guy with a cellphone camera, Clinton’s announcement was a veritable showpiece of Hollywood-style set design, lighting and cinematography. While Clinton, looking radiant in a red jacket and flattering makeup, affected the demeanor of a kaffe-klatching neighbor while speaking about the Iraq war, energy, Social Security and health care, the camera swung with pen dular subtlety between a background tableaux of framed family pictures and a fabulous table lamp exuding a warm glow. In fact, the background is so eye-catching, so crowded with totemic details, so bursting with semiotic potential, that I missed whole passages of Clinton’s statement the first time around. (And yes, I do want that lamp.)

The effect was one of breathtaking political shrewdness and brilliant staging, like a mash-up between “The West Wing” and Diane Keaton’s latest holiday heartwarmer. And for all its studied spontaneity, its air of having been pre-tested, choreographed, and managed to within a microfiber of Clinton’s mascara, it worked, if only to provide a little eye candy within a grainy sea of canned speeches and awkward iChats. The aesthetic sophistication suited Clinton, who, as a former first lady and a U.S. senator, would look hopelessly out of place in most other contexts (rocking the mom jeans in the Ninth Ward? Uh-uh. Maybe an ornate Senate office, but where’s the zazz in yet another wall of law books?), and the look and the script warmed up a woman portrayed as either an amoral ice queen or control-freaky dragon lady by her political opponents.

Three quick points: First, the novelty of launching a campaign on the web should have worn off a long time ago.  The web is not even close to being the most dynamic vehicle for delivering information anymore, politics has just been slow to embrace what virtually every major consumer brand and entertainment company in the world has been doing for the past five years.  A really nice website, a blog, or even a web video announcement is not enough.  Its time you ran a fully funded, fully supported effort online to promote your campaign - and to engage the audience that chooses to get its information there instead of through traditional news or campaign events (which are still important as well).  Second, announcing your campaign online sets all of our expectations very high that you, as a candidate, will remain committed to using the web.  John Edwards, you have already created behind-the-scenes web videos about yourself, recorded podcast conversations about issues, and similar.  Are you going to keep doing that when you are visiting four states a day - so we can see what really happens to a person when they don’t sleep enough, eat healthy, or have complete control over their message?  Hillary Clinton, you are taking your web efforts to the next level already, inviting the audience to create the first guest blog post to be published on your site and hosting a series of live video chats with the web audience over the coming week.  Are you going to host live web-chats every week, about any topic?  Are you going to take on the large and vocal segment of the online audience who questions your policies, challenges your positions, and even insults you personally — or will your web campaign, like your offline efforts, be so highly managed and controlled that it fails to really engage people?  Finally, the media needs to find a better way to cover and express the value the web plays in this upcoming cycle than how they are currently doing it.  We have all read, time and time again, what a big impact the web is playing and will continue to play in politics.  Its time to assign a full time, daily reporter to cover each campaign’s online efforts.  It is time to hold the campaigns accountable for what they say will be an online, grassroots fueled effort and put the same scrutiny on their web efforts as you do on their fundraising, their television ads, their speeches, and — even in some cases, their clothing.  Just as you have pushed increasing resources into covering traditional news through the online medium, now its time to recognize that the online efforts of a presidential campaign are also news and cover them accordingly.

It should be an exciting couple of years for those of us who live, work, and love the online medium.  I will definitely be watching to see what happens.  I hope the political world realizes the potential that it has to reach and engage the audience before and lives up to its end of the bargain.

Update: I wasn’t totally fair to Bill Richardson.  He has a very nice website (here) and has posted his announcement video to YouTube and other places.  He has a MySpace page, a Facebook profile, etc.  He’s following the new media playbook pretty much to all the way.  We will have to wait and see how that works for him.

The Times They Are A Changin’

Monday is the day when the media covers the media.  And yesterday did not disappoint.  What was making news?  Here is just a sampling:

- Time Magazine was delivered to newsstands on Friday and by Monday the industry was in a full fledged twitter.  The magazine is much thinner and puts a heavier emphasis than ever before on hard-core reporting and high-profile authors.  Gone are the days when Time tries to be everything to all people it seems.  As Richard Stengel, the managing editor explained it to readers in a letter that appeared in the latest issue, the new publication date “reflects the way the Internet is affecting pretty much everything about the news business.”  He notes:

The most immediate change is right in front of you. The issue you are holding in your hands — or perhaps you’re reading this online — is the first issue of TIME with our new on-sale day, Friday. In fact, it’s the first copy of TIME magazine to go on sale on Friday in more than 50 years. We’ve moved our publication schedule because the news environment has shifted and because we’ve been listening to you. Over and over, we’ve heard from subscribers that they get the magazine early in the week and then put it aside to read on the weekend. The solution was pretty simple: let’s get you the magazine on the weekend when you want it.

At the same time, I believe that getting the magazine on newsstands on Friday helps us set the news agenda, not just mirror it. The traditional newsmagazine was retrospective, looking back at what happened the previous week. But today’s TIME is much more forward-looking, offering you guidance on what’s essential to know going forward. Many news sources give you information; we provide knowledge and meaning.

You can read more here, here, and here.

- Kit Seelye writes in the New York Times about how Washington Bureaus for major print news organizations are shrinking.  She writes “Faced with declining advertising revenues and competition from the Web, midsize, regional dailies across the country have been retrenching in recent years to focus on local news. That has scaled back their Washington coverage, and their national ambitions.”

- In another story by Kit Seelye, the curtain is pulled back at The Politico, the new hard-core political news organization led by former Washington Post writers Jim VanderHei and John Harris (more recently a contributor to Time) and graced with the talents of columnists like Roger Simon.  According to Seelye, “The Politico is planning its own regular half-hour program on Allbritton’s 24-hour cable news service, Channel 8, which reaches 1.1 million viewers in the region. Its reporters are to appear on CBS News programs. And The Politico is planning a five-minute daily segment in the late afternoon on WTOP, Washington’s all-news radio station.”  Does this signal some kind of major change in political news coverage - or the media industy all together?  The article suggests it might, though it gives the doubters their due as well:

If The Politico succeeds, it could signal that the Web has become a more plausible alternative for mainstream journalists. (Most bloggers offer their Web logs free, and rare is the site that pays reporters to create original content.) But there are skeptics who say that the focus of The Politico is too narrow and that the marketplace too crowded with sources of political news, from sites like RealClearPolitics.com to scores of other publications, including newspapers and their Web sites. Partisans, especially, feast on sites that affirm their views; The Politico says it will be nonpartisan.

What I find most interesting is that this whole discussion about the shift in the media, political or otherwise, is coming the same week that the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) is taking place out in Las Vegas.  CES is the glitzy, crazy party of the year for gadget junkies as well as the platform that every major technology company in the world uses to launch their new initiatives.  What are people talking about at CES this week?  Based on the coverage I have read, 2007 will be the year of the networked consumer — in other words, it is the year that the industry will finally figure out that different people have different preferences when it comes to getting, sharing, and experiencing information and deliver the technologies and services to satisfy the demand.  Rather than try to force one format on people, technology folks are promoting devices, and services, that do it all.  The consumer will have their choice of content and method of delivery (they always have really), but more importantly, the variety and the quality of the experience will finally begin to rise to meet expectations. 

The changes at Time Magazine and the launch of The Politico reflect a recognition by those in journalism that people don’t get their news one way anymore.  Its not a run and hide strategy that suggests people aren’t interested in the news, or aren’t satisfied with the quality of the content (though that may come in time) - its a evolution of both the delivery method and the content strategy to adapt to changing times.  By contrast, the shrinking of the Washington Bureaus does the opposite - it will further limit the choices that consumers have when it comes to news and will serve only to increase frustration.  As distribution methods become more micro-focused and consumers are able to pick what information they want to receive, when, and how, the media companies that pulled their reporters should be doing the opposite — hiring more, training better, and assigning differently so that more things are covered, more thoughtful insights are provided, and more options exist for people to consume the news they find most interesting or relevant.

John Edwards’ Online Presidential Launch

The online world is buzzing about the online-heavy launch of John Edwards’ campaign for President.  Jeff Jarvis summarized it this way:

So John Edwards announced his presidential announcement on YouTube in a video made by Andrew Baron and Joanne Colan of Rocketboom (who put up their own interview the next day) and Chuck Olsen (who, Andrew reports, is flying with Edwards to make video for the official campaign site). The digital cool doesn’t end there. Edwards tells you to text the word “hope” to a given number to get more instructions; how mobile. As NewTeeVee reports, he has Robert Scoble trailing around with a camera as well. He’s “live-bloggin” (their usage, not the usual meaning) at Daily Kos. He’s trying to create is own sort of Peace Corps called One Corps with people signing up online to do good deeds under his brand (they will “fight poverty” and, oh, while they’re at it, flog candidates who “support One America ideals’ [that was the old name of this campaign effort] and spread the word by calling radio stations). And tonight he’s having an online town hall from Iowa.

How cyber can you get?

Is this all just a publicity stunt to look modern and cool or is this a turning point in how campaigns are run? We’ll know in about a decade.

I think we will know whether John Edwards, and other candidates for President in 2008, are serious about the use of the internet and change the way they campaign well before a decade has passed.  Change is already taking place.  I wonder what impact those changes will have on politics - and what use of online is really worthwhile when promoting a political activity like this.  What will John Edwards’ next announcement look like and how much of his campaign will be geared towards the online audience (as opposed to complementing his outreach to all audiences, to balance or bypass television coverage, for example)?  How will the online momentum that he is able to generate translate into real votes on Election Day (remember, Howard Dean had all the online momentum before the 2004 primaries began but couldn’t translate them into wins in key primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire, dooming his quest). 

I have high hopes for the Edwards campaign and their online efforts in particular.  But I don’t want this to become a debate about what an internet-driven campaign should look like, or a media-driven frenzy over ‘who is going to be the internet candidate’.  Every candidiate should launch their campaigns online in some way because a big part of the electorate looks online for some part of their news, or political information.  But every campaign, Edwards included, should also have a substantial grass-roots base, a sophisticated media strategy, a good message and some credible policy positions, advertising, and a host of other things.  The smart campaigns know this.  And when we look back in November 2008 at which candidate was elected as our next President, it will be the one who mixed all those pieces best that wins the day. 

Political Ads on iPods?

From Washington Whispers…

The Future of Politics in an iPod
It wasn’t long ago that we told you of how the Democrats and Republicans were preparing a new way to reach voters in 2008 through their mobile technology and iPods. Well, now we know why. Republican pollster David Winston tells us that new research found that 40 percent of 2006 voters ages 18 to 34 own iPods. And many don’t make time to watch lots of tv, choosing instead to TiVo their faves or record podcasts. So what will be the best way to reach those critical voters in 2008? Through their iPods, he says, especially when the mp3s go wireless. “That’s the next environment,” he predicts, “where people will get their information.” His tip to the pols: Make the ads riveting. The best example: losing Maryland Senate candidate Michael Steele’s family-focused tv ads, some of which featured a cute Boston terrier.

I think he’s on the right track.  The big question, at least for me, is whether political advertisers will recognize the difference between the message and the medium.  An iPod, like any other piece of technology, is simply a delivery mechanism for content.  People like watching TV, listening to music, and playing games on their handheld devices because they are away from home or don’t have access to other forms of technology where they usually get that stuff.  Will political ads be compelling enough to get people to watch, simply becuase they are available for an iPod or similar?  its not about the content of the ads alone - as he suggests.  Its about the political process as a whole as well.

Google CEO says Internet is key to campaign win

Google CEO, Eric Schmidt, told Republican governors yesterday at the internet was going to play a big role in politics.  More importantly, Schmidt gave some examples of cool ways the internet was already changing politics.  One example from overseas:

Schmidt said the Gulf kingdom of Bahrain got a taste in the run-up to its elections last weekend, when someone used the Google Earth satellite mapping feature to photograph the ruling family’s lavish houses, and posted them on line, juxtaposed next to the homes of ordinary citizens.

The government tried to censor the photos, which instantly boosted their popularity, he said.

He also said that Google was taking steps to limit the effectiveness of ‘Google-bombing’ - a tactic of manipulating search results to promote a specific topic.  Some bloggers used this tactic to help promote flattering news about Democratic candidates and unflattering news about their Republican opponents during this past Election cycle.

You can read the full article here.

On a related note, Mindshare (where I work) released a white paper last week about the impact that technology had on this past election cycle and how candidates should use interactive techniques in the future to win elections.  I hope you will download and read it.