I wanted to take my time reacting to the landmark presidential election that came to a close this week.  It’s hard for someone my age to truly comprehend the monumental impact of Obama’s win for race relations in the U.S. and around the world.  This is because I never looked or thought about Obama’s race.  For many of my friends, Obama was a youthful, exciting symbol of a generation.  The comparisons the John F. Kennedy speak volumes. I recognize JFK’s legacy not for policy, but for how he inspired the nation.  He gave the country goals, to work to make the country better and even tangibly putting a man on the moon.  The result was a generation excited by science and lofty goals that have build the economic powerhouse we are today.

I hope Obama can give us new goals.  It’s not simply about policy: Rhetoric matters.  Obama can pass better healthcare and fund green technologies, but unless the country comes together to be healthier and live greener, neither proposal is going to succeed.

Unfortunately, during the campaign, no one asked what does change mean? How will we know if things have changed? Will they have changed for the better? I and many others assumed the change Obama was speaking to meant the same thing (he’s still a brilliant politician). Obviously corruption and partisanship are bad, but is fixing that enough (assuming that’s possible). Obama’s victory speech spoke volumes about how hard things will be – it’s likely to get worse before it gets better. He’s won now, I’d hope for even more honesty and candor.

Being honest doesn’t have to destroy the hope he symbolizes. In fact, that makes the hope so much greater – there’s a light at the end of the recession. That light won’t come from bailouts (contrary to what other politicians say). It’ll come from calm, cool heads prevailing and bringing sanity back to the financial system.  See why we need hope?

Everyone has expectations for what Obama will fix in office – years of Bush bashing policies cleaned and refurbished with a nice, liberal sheen. Maybe I’m setting my sights to low, but I mainly hope Obama keeps that hope going.  Keep the U.S. and the world optimistic. He’s a symbol that anyone can succeed and that’s an image the world needs now. It’s the irony of hope – you always need it, because so much can happen tomorrow. So bring on tomorrow. We’ve got hope.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain has been open about his lack of computer knowledge, saying “I am an illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance that I can get.” He adds he’s “learning to get online” and “will have that down fairly soon.” He doesn’t read email and won’t blog. McCain’s aide Mark Soohoo added “you don’t have to use a computer to understand how it shapes the country.”

Is that true? With so many technology issues going unaddressed or made worse with bad legislation, can we support a politician who isn’t fully informed.

Politicians, especially presidential candidates, should have a familiarity with the major technology trends, issues, and debates much like they would any other field from energy to foreign policy. I don’t expect candidates to design their own web pages or develop PHP applications, but using email and and search engines should be second nature.

The United States has no broadband policy, an out-of-date legal system unable to cope with online issues, and a steam of misinformation about security and privacy risks all likely do to a legislative body uneducated on the driving force of the world economy.  Politicians should know more than the average person because they have to make decisions that affect everyone else. Advisors are there to help filter the information, but some knowledge needs to come from the politicians, otherwise how can we trust they’ll make good decisions.

And admitting you don’t know something 73 percent of Americans use regular isn’t a good decision.

NBC announced yesterday Tom Brokaw will moderate Meet the Press during the election season, taking over for the recently deceased Tim Russert. The obvious benefits Brokaw are his decades of experience, headlining NBC Nightly News for more than 20 years. Steve Boriss of Future of News points out, this as a step backward.

NBC has decided to take a step backward, replacing Tim Russert with dino-anchor Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press. Actually, the decision was made for them because a step forward, or even a step to the side, does not exist. Network news is over.

Brokaw is an amazing journalist that my parents loved. And my grandparents. Network news wants raise its audience, but playing to the aging baby boomers is short term thinking (not to be too morbid here). There are several generations of people under 40 who don’t care about network news.

Brokaw is especially ironic in an election season pitting the old versus the new. John McCain and Hillary Clinton push the standard baby boomer sales pitches in an election season when Obama’s change mantra became as refreshing as a politician knowing how to use a computer. Tom Brokaw is network news answer to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

The problem is there isn’t a new generation of reporters to take over for Russert. Even if Brokaw is only temporary, there aren’t many options to replace him (Aaron Brown please?).  Few journalists today have the years of experience as foreign correspondents and hard news junkies that shaped the last generation of news anchors, giving us credible newsmen. NBC had to move backwards because there isn’t anybody in front.

Last night’s Daily Show reveal the news media’s true goal this election cycle - to make it never end. Asif Mandvi had his fingers crossed as Hillary Clinton, on the night Obama won enough delegates to claim the nomination, refused to concede defeat. If she ends her campaign, how will three 24-hour news channels fill up their time?

This entire primary season has been an effort in futility for anyone seeking information. Beyond the wasted time on out of context quotes, inflammatory relationships, and flag pins, the media punditry has desperately tried to frame this election as a horse race where if you turn away for a second, you’ll miss the crucial turning point. The result has been a ratings boon for the cable networks, with CNN seeing 90 percent increases over last year’s first quarter. MSBNC grew 68 percent. Fox News hasn’t benefited as much, with a 14 percent increase. The Democratic candidates had shut out the station from interviews until Hillary Clinton went on Bill O’Reilly’s show, giving his show a 30 percent boost in total viewers.

The 24-hour news networks relied on the image of a close race to build its ratings and are continuing the mirage heading into the general election. I don’t mean to say Hillary Clinton and John McCain had/have no chance of winning, but the odds were/are so against them. The media knows a close race is better television than a sure thing and that is causing them to be unobjective in their reporting, often overblowing non-issues in the hopes that flag pins and Reverend Wright would keep the race going.

The general election looks be a Democratic landslide even as polls show Obama and McCain are in a statistical dead heat. These polls do not account for a unified Democratic party, one this split between rabid Clinton and Obama supporters who, very likely, have no intention of voting for anti-abortion, pro-war Republican McCain even though they say so now in polls. McCain has already collected support his primary challengers just as Obama will once Clinton accepts her 2nd place finish. The result will be an unprecedented coalition of the two biggest voter and fundraising networks in history, a network McCain can’t catch up to even if he didn’t have a fundraising issue.

The other point ignored by polls is that the electoral college counts, popular vote doesn’t. I think the popular vote will end up close between Obama and McCain. The electoral college will be a Democratic landslide benefited by anti-war and anti-Republican sentiments, McCain’s lackluster appeal to hard conservatives, and Obama’s massive appeal to the youth and African-Americans. Democratic wins of special elections in Illinois (Dennis Hastert, former speaker of the house’s seat), Louisiana, and Mississippi (Trent Lott’s seat former seat), by sizeable margins spell doom for Republicans. McCain might toy with winning states like New Jersey, Michigan, and New York, but he has to hold prior swing states like Ohio, Florida, and Iowa while playing defensive in Virginia, North Carolina, Nevada, New Mexico, and in optimistic circles, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, Kansas, Montana, and Texas. Short of an Obama imposition, it’s impossible to see an electoral scenario where McCain can win.

But the news media doesn’t want to entertain electoral math. It’s more fun to pretend Obama has a white problem (how many African American’s live in Montana, Iowa, and Wisconsin?) or highlight how much independents love McCain. It keeps the race looking closer than it really is.

I don’t want CNN to call the race for Obama or ignore McCain as an also-ran. Their responsibility should be to inform us of the facts of the campaign - who did what when and why. What if questions or conjecture have no place in objective journalism. Blogs, on the other hand, can go conjecture crazy. Without some source for objective, investigative reporting on both candidates, this election is going to once again defined by talking points, 527-organization, and out-of-context crap that doesn’t matter. Change and leaders we can believe in requires a media to change and lead.

Continue reading…

Another primary, another exit poll, and more pundits proclaiming the what ifs that have yet to become reality.  Mississippi voted yesterday and its sizeable black population gave Barack Obama a sizeable win.  But his modest turnout of white votes are once again giving pundits pause.

I ask why?  Time.com’s Michael Duffy writes "Only a Democrat who could win 35 to 40 percent of the white vote, while holding onto a lopsided percentage of blacks, could put the state in play in a head to head match with a Republican in the fall" saying Obama’s 30 percent of the white vote falls short.

But politics is not a zero-sum game.  White votes for Clinton do not instantly transfer to John McCain in the general election, just like Clinton’s wins in swing states Ohio do not mean only she is allowed to win it come November.  Exit polls in Ohio showed 44 percent would be satisfied with either candidate.  50 percent of them voted for Clinton.

Also, exit polls are showing just how hard it is to predict some states and voting groups.  Obama faired poorly with whites in Mississippi and Ohio but won the white vote in the larger Virginia, a once solid Republican state that will be a major swing this year.  And how many black people voted in Iowa and Wisconsin?

This election cycle has simply proved how little all the pundits (including myself) can know and predict.  But that hasn’t stopped the predicting and analysis which is captivated by the fight at hand without considering how things we didn’t predict will change everything else.  And remember votes don’t disappear after they’re cast.  We get to do this all over again in November.  I can’t wait.

I had avoided watching political debates this cycle mostly because I hate the canned rhetoric and lack of real debate. The rules are so strictly prepared by the candidates, the debates are in my cynical opinion, a badly scripted reality show. But I caved Tuesday and watched the debate on MSNBC.

While the debated seemed one notch above reality TV (a game show maybe), I found both Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama engaging. It was the moderating journalists that looked like idiots.

NBC Nightly News host Brian Williams and Meet the Press host Tim Russert went back and forth in a subtle battle for who could ask the least relevant question.

Continue reading…

From superdelegates to no delegates to switching delegates, Democrats are facing an uncertain primary season where anything can happen.  And that’s not a good thing.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue their heated campaign that is unlikely to be resolved before the convention this summer.  That time leaves many questions about the Democratic Party’s primary process and how democratic it really is.  If the candidate who wins the popular vote doesn’t win the nomination, how credible can the Democratic Party be?

Several issues plague the Democratic nominees.  Each issue leads to a situation where questionable politics would result in a questionable nominee.  After two elections where Democrats watched Republicans manipulate and possibly suppressed the vote, Democrats risk doing the same to their own primary.  The winner of this doesn’t become president - he or she gets to run for president.  If the chosen nominee doesn’t win the popular vote, Democrats will lose all credibility to criticize Republican election tactics and worse, reveal that they are so inept at leading, they can’t run their own party.

Continue reading…

Ron Paul’s Internet Director and Finance Director spoke to George Washington University students about online fundraising.  Ron Paul’s campaign has provided a excellent case studies in raising money and organizing people online.  But has yet to translate the digital success into the real world. 

Paul has broken online fund-raising records without media support in a field of more prominent candidates.  He wins almost every online poll and even had a rally in the multiplayer video game World of Warcraft.  For all his successes, Paul’s candidacy has failed to translate into votes.  While he did beat out once front-runner Rudy Giuliani, Paul’s fourth place finishes in early primary states kept him out of serious consideration.

Paul has raised $28 million to Mike Huckabee’s $9 million.  Both are still in the race, but Huckabee has won several states and Paul barely registers.  His online models should be studied, but viewed in the context of how successful his campaign actually was - and remember money doesn’t win elections.

The GWU speakers criticized Barack Obama’s online strategy for its top-down operation.  The candidate’s official website has links to grassroots efforts.  In theory this sounds like a good criticism, but the reality is Obama is winning votes and raising tons of money (online especially), so what exactly is he doing wrong?  He’s not adhering to the strict definition of grassroots?  Who cares? 

The truth is maybe Obama has taken Paul’s internet efforts the step farther by guiding the grassroots efforts so they help the campaign.  Obama continues to attract thousands of supporters to rallies and clobbers Hillary Clinton in caucuses because of his enhanced organization.  While Paul has proven he could win President of Digg, he can’t even get news networks to take him seriously.  Maybe the next lecture can talk about how to get beaten by a candidate with a third of the resources - Religion trumps Technology could be the title.

The U.S. Pirate Party has announced their endorsement for Barack Obama for president.  Instead of running their own candidate, the party released a press release stating "We stand solidly behind Mr. Obama, as he is the only candidate that seems to realize that personal privacy is a right, not a privilege, and believes that copyright is, as the constitution defines, for progress, rather than profit."

I do not post this as an endorsement of the Pirate Party (I remain unaffiliated to maintain my journalistic integrity…).  I do, however, agree with the Pirate Party’s position that Obama has portrayed himself as the most tech friendly/savvy candidate.  This technology platform is an excellent start and well ahead of the nothing most other candidates have proposed.

My wonder is would being associated with the Pirate Party hurt a candidate, assuming anyone except the geekiest of geeks even heard about the endorsement.  The only mention of the endorsement comes from a personal profile page on BarackObama.com made by Pirates for Obama.  I’m sure that is just because the campaign is waiting for a major press conference.

The first Pirate Party (Piratpartiet) began in 2006 in Sweden where the party captured 34,918 votes (0.63 percent), making it the 10th biggest party in the country (out of 40).  The party also won 4.5 percent in mock school elections show popularity among youth.  The party boasts 9,600 members as of early 2007 in Sweden.  The U.S. Pirate Party began a few months later after the seizure of servers at Pirate Bay.org, a leading torrent tracking site, pushed by the United States government.

Updated 1-10-08