Noet All

What McNamara & Cuban Missiles Taught Me...

Robert Strange McNamara, who served as the US Secretary of Defense under both Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, died today at the age of 93. He lived a long life, and did many things; but his legacy will be tainted forever by his role in prosecuting the Vietnam War. The lessons he learned and the perspective he gained from that experience are explored brilliantly in the documentary by Errol Morris, The Fog of War, as seen in this clip from the film:

On the occasion of his passing, I would like to share some of the things I learned, and perspective I gained, from working on a project about the Cuban Missile Crisis of October, 1962. Had McNamara, and the administrations for which he served, been as thoughtful and careful when it came to Vietnam as they were in this crisis, their legacy would have been quite different than it is today.

President Kennedy and Secretary of Defense McNamara in an ExCom meeting.

Almost a decade ago, I was hired by New Line Cinema to produce the special features for a DVD of the film, Thirteen Days, which was about President Kennedy's response to the Cuban Missile Crisis. The film was based on the book by Ernest R. May Ph.D. and Philip D. Zelikow, The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House during the Cuban Missile Crisis. One of the most fascinating aspects of the crisis was the decision-making process, as orchestrated by Kennedy, and the superlative crisis-management skills he demonstrated. When President Kennedy was informed that the Soviets were establishing a base of nuclear weapons in Cuba, he immediately assembled a diverse team of experts, the Executive Committee of the National Security Council (ExCom), including Secretary McNamara, to advise him as to his options in dealing with the situation. As the possibility of nuclear war loomed large, Kennedy held multiple, grueling sessions of ExCom. The book contains transcripts of many of these deliberations.

One of the features I made for the DVD was a documentary entitled, "Roots of the Cuban Missile Crisis," in which I explored the historical context of the crisis, and how it informed Kennedy's decisions. I conducted most of my interviews in the Fall of 2000, as Al Gore and George W. Bush were each campaigning to become the 41^st President of the United States. None of us knew at the time how either would manage a crisis. What we now know, however, is that President Bush approaches crisis management very differently than Kennedy did.

The world stage and the human condition continue to increase infinitely in complexity, making many of our assumptions and responses to a given crisis obsolete each and every evolving moment. Certainly, it is true that our world has been forged by our past. Each war, each momentous event gives form to our thoughts, our understanding. But who we are, and what we do, is a new and unique entity that merely resembles the progenitors from whom we have inherited this earth. For this reason, we imperil ourselves, both physically and morally, if we try to define our leaders, villains and movements with historical analogies, which only serve as limited pieces of rhetoric, designed to win our respective arguments. (Case in point was the fact that from the onset of the Iraq War, EACH side likened the other to Hitler, in order to stigmatize opposing views.) In order to move forward wisely during any crisis, we must strive to understand, to the best of our abilities, the ways in which the unique circumstances of this place in time must be addressed.

Albert Einstein once said, reflecting this very sentiment at the dawn of the atomic age, "The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking..." He knew that we must begin to comprehend the incomprehensible if we were ever going to survive in a world in which we were newly capable of the incomprehensible. Furthermore, he said this in the 1950s, when all the existing plans for the Vietnam situation included the use of nuclear weapons.

That said, of course, I agree that we can look to our past for a better understanding of our present. At 7PM, on Monday, October 22, 1962, President Kennedy appeared on television to inform Americans of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Some of this speech was included in Thirteen Days, as seen in this clip from one of the documentaries I made for the DVD:

In this speech, Kennedy reveals some of the internal struggle that guided his response to the crisis:

"The 1930's taught us a clear lesson: aggressive conduct, if allowed to go unchecked and unchallenged ultimately leads to war. This nation is opposed to war. We are also true to our word. Our unswerving objective, therefore, must be to prevent the use of these missiles against this or any other country, and to secure their withdrawal or elimination from the Western Hemisphere."

Kennedy was not only a product of WWII, but furthermore; he felt personal shame from the fact that his father had been an active supporter of the early policy of appeasement toward Hitler in the 1930s. By the time he was faced with the Cuban Missile Crisis, it had become conventional wisdom that Hitler could have been stopped short and WWII avoided, had his aggression been checked years earlier. No one can know whether or not this is true, but Kennedy wisely saw that, whether or not it was true, the situation confronting him had unique aspects which called for a unique response. His belief in the absolute intolerability of a nuclear presence so near our boarders was countered by his fear of retaliation against the people of Berlin, should we act precipitously. There are many ways in which the Cuban Missile Crisis could have been resolved...but I believe that it was Kennedy's determination to fully understand the various nuances of the situation, in order to respond carefully and appropriately, that led to a resolution that did not include a nuclear holocaust.

In another part of that same speech by Kennedy, he speaks to concerns that many of us had about Iraq before the invasion:

"Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril. Nuclear weapons are so destructive and ballistic missiles are so swift, that any substantially increased possibility of their use or any sudden change in their deployment may well be regarded as a definite threat to peace."

While the situation was different, these words explain why in 2002, most Americans considered Saddam's perceived determination to develop nuclear weapons to constitute a direct and deadly threat. While I agree with JFK's premise that the mere possession of weapons of mass destruction by a country like Iraq can constitute a clear and present danger, at the time, I was unconvinced that Iraq did have these weapons. One of the reasons for that doubt was my knowledge of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

While working on Thirteen Days, I had seen the U2 surveillance photos of 1962. In fact, the entire world saw them when Stevenson argued our position at the UN in 1962. In 2002, I found it difficult to believe that forty years later, our technology could not manage to supply us with comparable evidence. We now know that one answer to that question was that there wasn't any evidence. If we had insisted on more proof and less rhetoric, we may have had fewer Senators willing to cast a vote to authorize the war.

The threat of nuclear power in the hands of a perceived enemy is compelling. Fear can influence people to act against some of their most strongly held convictions. In fact, one of the ways our government got the scientists of the Manhattan Project to develop the atom bomb in the first place, was to convince them (many of them Jewish) that Hitler was hot on the trail of developing the same weapon...which, of course, turned out not to be true. Nonetheless, the fear was enough drive away any reservations any may have had. In 1946, Einstein said: "If I had known that the Germans would not succeed in constructing the atom bomb, I would never have lifted a finger."

None of this is to say that I don't I think we should defend ourselves. However, the question still remains: from whom and how? I think we need to respect the complexity of the situation and respond with a clear understanding of what is actually going on... something Kennedy made every attempt to do and which Bush clearly failed to do when he decided to invade Iraq.

If there is anything I want to learn from the past, it is that we cannot react to situations because our leaders say "just cuz." They told us that all communists were evil...so we blacklisted them, feared them and persecuted them. One of the byproducts of the 1950s red scares was that any person with history or understanding of Asia was branded a "pinko" or a "commie" and was "purged" from the "intelligence" community and government. This is one of the reasons that the government so terribly misjudged so much of what happened during the years we fought in Vietnam. Most of the people who could have knowledgeably advised the President had been weeded out of his pool of advisors.

Sadly, President Bush showed no apparent desire to seek the counsel of those who understood all the nuances of the situation in the middle-east. Yes, his advisors included people who had waged war there, but sorely missing were people who had spent the time to understand what it is to wage peace there. These were my concerns from the start.

No one really knows how Bush would have handled the Cuban missile crisis or how JFK would have handled the Iraq crisis, but we do know that Kennedy's process (calling multiple meetings of top advisors with a variety of perspectives) gave him a more complex understanding of his options and pitfalls than Bush's process did. When lives are at stake, I'll take the guy (or gal) who takes the time to understand the situation fully before committing American blood and treasure.

According to various accounts, Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunni and Shia Muslims for as long as a year after his "Axis of Evil" speech. In contrast, JFK was doodling the word "Berlin" on a piece of paper during the initial meetings about the Cuban Missile Crisis, an indication he was considering the various ramifications of any action he took. I guess my point is that JFK's approach to decision-making was much more thoughtful and; I'd argue that thoughtful leadership is better.

It remains to be seen what President Obama's legacy will be in the end. However, one of the reasons I have such faith in him as a leader, is that he has demonstrated just such an ability to consider the complexities of the world as he navigates the treacherous waters of foreign policy.

Following is an excerpt of his speech against going to war with Iraq from 2002:

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

Let us hope that as President Obama meets incoming challenges, both foreign and domestic, he continues to listen to draw on the strength of conviction and wisdom that led him to oppose the Iraq war in 2002. We know that Robert McNamara had a compass that served him well during the Cuban Missile Crisis...didn't mean he knew which way to go in Vietnam.

Not All Spending Is Pork...But I Hope Pigs Can Fly.

Enough already! Don't make me pull over!

I've had enough of the partisan bickering about the Stimulus Bill. Thus far, much of the media coverage about the bill has failed to seriously analyze the efficacy of the bills...including the C-SPAN footage of the debate on the Hill. Instead, the conversation has consisted of little more than name-calling...on both sides. The Republicans are so obsessed with "pork," you'd think they had the Swine Flu. All the while, we are left to conclude that we are more likely to see pigs fly, than to see Congress pass an effective recovery plan. 

Let's have a little less food-fighting and a little more substantive debate...please.

For starters, I would like to see some coverage that does more than ask the question: 

"Which is better, 'tax-cuts' or 'pork-barrel spending?'" 

The truth is, it's a complex bill, with numerous components...all with the stated intention that they will help to stimulate the economy. So which things will actually do that? And why, or why not? 

A recent article, from Washington Monthly's Political Animal, makes some interesting points to that end:

"The authors of the legislation emphasized a point we used to hear more from the White House: this spending package is intended to offer stimulative benefits and lay the groundwork for future gains.

So, for example, when the bill includes $6.7 billion for renovations and repairs to federal buildings, it creates jobs for those doing the work, and it saves the government in the future because current buildings haven't been weatherized. When the bill includes $2 billion in Head Start and Early Head Start funding, it creates educations jobs, and it pays dividends with long-term benefits to students. When the bill invests a $2.6 billion in advanced battery technology research and development, it creates engineering jobs, and it pays dividends in energy costs, U.S. manufacturing, and a competitive edge."

Okay, now those are actual theories on how this bill might improve the economy. I would like to see more explications of exactly how and why the authors of this bill think it will work.

On the other hand, I'd like to hear the opposition rebut those specific arguments...if they can. Don't just tell me that any government spending is bad. That may be your ideology, but it isn't mine. Make your case.

The Democrats argue that spending money on infrastructure has a positive ripple effect on the economy. The way they see it, the process begins with construction workers, steel workers, etc, then it flows through the manufacturing and retail industries as the workers consume, before feeding back into the coffers of the government in the form of new tax revenues from all those who would otherwise be unemployed.

If the Republicans see flaws in that reasoning, tell me what they are. We know that tax-cuts can fail to stimulate the economy when people don't spend them. What I'd like to know is: 

"When do new construction, manufacturing and retail jobs fail to stimulate?"

I look forward to some more substantive and specific arguments in the coming daze...from either side...and I hope pigs can fly.

What's Going On With The "Stimulus" Bill?

President Obama's first major piece of legislation is being called the "Stimulus" Bill by the Democrats, the "Welfare State Giveaway" by the Republicans and "H.R. 1: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" on the Hill. While trying to make sense of what is actually in the bill, I found an excellent site called, GovTrack that allows people to track legislation as it winds its way through Congress.

Following is the description of the bill from GovTrack: 

Making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.

In addition to providing the full text of the bill, the site also offers an update feed of all the bill's legislative activity. If it's working correctly, it will automatically update this post with the most recent activities in regard to the progress of this bill.

Following is that feed:

I hope you find this as informative and helpful as I have!

Best, Noetical.

Gay Marriage & A Moral Minority

Dear Readers:

Following is something I recently seeded to my Newsvine Column:

Gay Marriage and a Moral Minority   
Seeded Article: "Gay Marriage and a Moral Minority“
Article Source: The New York Times

News Type: Event — Seeded on Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:45 PM PST
Seeded by Noetical
Interesting analysis of why a majority of Black Voters voted for California’s Prop. 8 and against Gay Marriage. It also discusses ways in which proponents for the rights of Gay Men and Women to Marry might effectively sway the opinion of these voters.

Originally published to Noetical’s Newsvine Column.

Have You Voted Yet? My Early Voting Story...What's Yours?

So I finally voted. I live in Los Angeles County in California, and there is only one place to vote early here:

   

It was an interesting experience to say the least. First of all, it was a pain to go there, as the only place to early vote is about an hour from my house. Once I got there, the line took me two hours to get through...that's two hours exactly to get to the part where I was given my ballot. Then it took another half hour to find an open booth, vote and double check my selections. While standing in line, I talked to the various people standing around me. Most were Obama supporters, as you might expect in Los Angeles County. The guy standing in front of me was very nice and wore an "Obama for President" T-shirt until we got close enough that he was required by law to remove it. At first, we talked generally about why we supported Obama. He was an African-American male in his 40s, I'd guess. Nonetheless, he was adamant that Obama's superior intelligence was the primary reason for his support for Obama. (For the sake of the remainder of this post, I'll call him ObamaShirt.) Here's a picture I posted on twitter from the early vote line of ObamaShirt:

   

One of the crazy realities about voting for the first African-American to run on a major party ticket for President is that many people feel the need to defend their vote in some way. I suppose as a white liberal woman, I should feel defensive myself. I should feel the need to explain that I'm voting for Obama for reasons other than "liberal guilt." Were I a black woman, I might feel the need to explain the reasons for voting for Obama other than his race. Perhaps not. 

Since I'm not black, it's hard to suppose who I would be if I were. As it is, I find it difficult to feel anything that would necessitate a justification for my Obama support. I'm not saying that I'm immune to liberal guilt, I'm just saying that it isn't something that overwhelms my consciousness to the point where I notice it as a primary motivator. 

In fact, my support for Obama as a politician and leader is the strongest I've ever felt in my adult life. This support is grounded in an appreciation for the breadth of knowledge, keen insight and wisdom he has exhibited during his public life. The confidence I have in his abilities is too strong to stem from guilt or obligation. 

Now, before you go running for the antidote to the Kool-Aide you're now convinced I must be drinking, I will say that I have much lower expectations of what Obama will be able to accomplish as President than I do of what I believe he has the capacity and desire to do. Much to the chagrin of most candidates over the years, a President does not have the power to unilaterally execute his promises. Even with an expanded definition of the powers of the Executive Branch, Bush was unable to push though 100% of his agenda (thank goodness.) 

I believe Obama will be a more effectual leader than most, however. One thing that he seems to have an innate sense of, is the fact that the power of a President flows from his connection to the people. As such, I believe he will utilize his exceptional communication skills to rally the populace behind his political agenda. But I digress... 

So, I'm standing in line with Obama supporters in front of and behind me. At one point, I take a moment to discuss Proposition 4 with a woman standing a few people in front of me. It requires a waiting period and parental notification before minors can obtain abortions. We discuss the ways in which that might be problematic for girls who have abusive parents and; we agree that someone considered old enough to take responsibility for a child should have the right to decide if that is something she is willing and ready to do. 

Not long after that exchange, ObamaShirt brings up Proposition 8, which essentially eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Turns out, that like many people, ObamaShirt has eclectic political views and; not all of his views were "liberal." By the way, I'm fine with that. While it is true that in general I consider myself a "liberal," my politics are not "liberal" down the line, as I take each issue as its own question. I find labels to be ambiguous at best and misleading at worst, especially considering the ways in which the meaning of this word and its opposites continually evolve. 

I'm "conservative" when it comes to many economic issues, "liberal" on many social issues and "centrist" on various other issues. For instance, I strongly believe in a person's right to believe that the first woman was made from a man's rib, but I don't want my tax dollars to be spent on teaching that to children in our public science classrooms. I think it is more appropriate to teach the Bible in church sermons, Sunday school classes and in the home...which by the way are the places I learned about God growing up. But I digress again...one of my bad habits =-) 

I won't go into the discussion we had at length, but suffice it to say that the conversation included him retrieving his Bible from his backpack to read Leviticus 20:13 to me:

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

I with the old "slavery is in the Bible" argument. When that didn't work, I countered with Leviticus 20:18:

"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has exposed her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from their people."

This passage basically means that it is also an offense to God for a man to sleep with a woman when she is having her period, even if that woman is his wife. Since most Christians don't consider that to be the taboo that they believe homosexuality is, this seemed to be a legitimate route. Unsurprisingly, this line of reasoning failed to sway him as well. Ultimately, I grew tired of the argument and moved on to crowd watching. 

Happily, I noticed at that moment that Larry Wilmore, regular contributor to the Daily Show was standing about ten people behind me in line, waiting to vote. I walked back and accosted him for a photograph. As someone who has spent most of her life living in either Los Angeles or New York, and who has worked in the entertainment industry for many years, I've met quite a few celebrities, including Jon Stewart several years back. Nonetheless, I've never asked someone famous if I could take their photograph before. I guess I've been socialized to leave celebrities alone for the most part. 

The thing is, it was just too perfect that I had been standing in line, waiting to vote for an hour and a half, trading Leviticus passages with a stranger, and one of the guys from the best political satire show of our time happened to be standing in line with me. Had to ask him! He was very nice about it. The photo didn't turn out, because the light was bad and I had to take it with a borrowed cell phone...but at least I have the story! 

So that's my story of voting early. I don't know if it's worth it for everyone to vote early...but I'm happy I did. It was certainly an adventure...one that could only happen in this crazy democratic experiment they call the United States of America! 

Whether or not you vote early...DO vote. You'll never wait in line for a ride or movie or concert that makes more of a difference in your life than the vote you wait to place in this election. And who knows...you may just get a few great stories out of the experience!

Why Obama is Kicking Ass Online...and Off...

Dear Readers:

Recently, I did some research on the ways in which the Barack Obama Campaign (BOC) has revolutionized the ways that political campaigns use of technology. It was in answer to a question on LinkedIn, and I thought I'd share it with you here.

The BOC's use of technology to further their goals has been extensive, sophisticated and groundbreaking. While we know this from the buzz around the BOC and see glimpses of their activities here and there, what isn't immediately apparent to most people outside the BOC is how integral technology is to their campaign. Yes, they have a website, as well as dedicated Obama pages on most of the social network sites. Most candidates these days do. What's different about the campaign's use of technology is the way they have combined a variety of existing technologies with newly developed tools in order to more fully harness the power of digital technology. One thing that the BOC realized early on is that the most valuable currency they can derive from a Web presence is DATA. Most of their online presence either drives, inspires or requires data deposits of various kinds by their users.

Following is a description from Blue State Digital, the developers of barackobama.com, of the online tools suite they used to create the site:

Blue State Digital:

BSD’s Online Tools Suite is the most effective Internet community solution available for candidates, cause-related organizations, and companies. Our tools combine fundraising, advocacy, and constituency-building capabilities into a comprehensive, action-oriented suite that will help you raise more money, grow your community faster, lock in constituent loyalty through social networking, and motivate your constituents to build public and legislative support behind the issues that matter to you.

The best fundraising tools on the market%2014including our innovative True Match technology, which matches up individual constituents personally to drive your fundraising revenue up%2014are at your fingertips, behind a program manager interface that helps you select segments based on their activity history and message them more effectively. And our advocacy tools, integrated with our versatile Legislative and Media Contact System, have been used successfully by dozens of organizations to win critical issue victories in state houses, in Congress, and among opinion leaders and the press.

But the real power of the BSD suite flows from our community development and social networking capabilities. By deploying BSD’s Online Tools Suite on your Web site, you can help your constituents connect with others who share their interests, motivations, and passions; leverage their desire to be part of a change-making movement; and motivate them to take specific actions that will further your cause.

Lead generation and tell-a-friend, peer-to-peer fundraising, blogging and community content management, event calendaring, a group communication engine open to every member%2014all these tactics are available for you to deploy, through our easy-to-use program manager interface. Point tracking, built-in messaging, and community rating are all built in, to help encourage your constituents to stay involved and active.

Another thing that the BOC realized from the start was how to utilize technology to facilitate action. Using the data they collect from a variety of places, including the Web, they provide their staff and volunteers with multiple tools to execute targeted campaign activities with various ends including:

• Registering new voters
• Recruiting new volunteers
• Message pushing (i.e.: facilitating viral dispersion of a given message)
• Getting out the vote (first in the primaries and for the general in November)
• Fundraising

While many of these tools have a Web component, it is the synergistic use of the Web with their offline activities that has yielded spectacular results. Most candidates use the Web much like corporations did in the mid-1990s to showcase their products. With the success of the Dean campaign at raising money on the Net, many campaigns have added ways to contribute, which is much like early e-commerce shopping carts that some companies used to start selling their products directly to their consumers. However, this limited approach doesn't gather nearly as much information about each user, nor does it empower them to take action.

Here I've listed a few of the tools that were custom built or tailored to fit the needs of the BOC:

TOOLS:

I. On demand CRM software and services: RightNow Technologies.

RightNow constructed two tools for the campaign:

"Invite Barack": A scheduling and email response system.

Handles non-media requests for Sen. Obama or members of his campaign to attend local events. Users fill out an online form that goes to a work queue with a team assigned to properly acknowledge and respond. In addition, the system allows the campaign to monitor trends in requests such as location, requesting organizations, outcomes, and so on.

"Obama Answer Center": A dynamic FAQ listing.

Users can search questions by category and keyword, browse the most popular answers, and submit questions that haven’t yet been answered.

Because the system captures all the actions and inputs of people who participate, the Obama campaign is able to use web analytics to sort the most popular keywords and questions by region to better understand the concerns of people in different parts of the country. This allows for more targeted ads and other messaging, but more importantly it provides another perspective on the issues that are important to voters. The campaign can also examine the questions that have been rated most effective and least effective in order to improve the quality of the answers.

II. Web-based, distributable voter file system: Voter Activation Network.

Voter Activation Network is a Voter contact tool, frequently referred to as "the VAN."

The BOC used a distributed deployment of the Voter Activation Network (or VAN), the voter file tool provided by the Boston firm of the same name. This is a database of registered voters by state that contains contact information coupled with information about how active that voter has been in the past, what their key issues are, etc.

III. Field operations management: Central Desktop.

Central Desktop helped the campaign build a precinct captain website that recruited, trained, and gave tools to thousands of volunteers in California and Texas. The My Barack Obama site allows supporters to build their own profiles in order to connect with local supporters, find or create a local or national group, create a personal fundraising page, find events or plan their own, and record their campaign experiences on their own blogs.

“When the Barack Obama Campaign team came to us, they needed a solution that would be up-and-running in minutes to manage a complex communication challenge for a widely dispersed group. Each California precinct has an externally facing workspace where information and tasks can be easily shared and disseminated. Each campaign team captain can create and view up-to-date information, coordinate and track projects, tasks and milestones as well as access data and statistics in real-time to help them 'identify, persuade and get-to-vote' as many Californian's as possible.”

—Isaac Garcia, CEO of Central Desktop.

IV. "MyBo" Social Networking and Social Action Campaign Site.

In addition to the standard informational content of most candidate websites, the My Barack Obama site allows supporters to build their own profiles and connect with local supporters, find or create a local or national group, create a personal fundraising page, find events or plan their own, and record their campaign experiences on their own blogs.

V. "Neighbor to Neighbor" Volunteer/Field Operations Management Tool.

Description from BarackObama.com:

"What this tool does is allow you to find lists of undecided voters in your area, whenever is convenient for you, go door to door to talk to them about Barack Obama and the campaign, and then provide an easy way to report back to the campaign what you have learned. I'm just going to show you a few quick things about the tool to make it easier for you as you go along.

When you log in, you'll see a list of undecided voters in your neighborhood on the screen. Click 'print walk lists' to get a map of those voters in your area. Here you can see a map of where the undecided voters in your area live. If you scroll down, you can see that you will also have a sample script with each voter and a spot to report the information of what you learned. The next step is to print out a flyer for your neighborhood if you want to leave information about Barack or the campaign for your neighbors. Click on 'next review flyers.' The final step takes you to a home page that you will see every time you log on. The most important part of the page is at the top, where you report voter contacts.

I cannot tell you enough how important it is that you report back what you have learned so we can bring new voters into this process. Once you click "report voter contacts" your list of voters in your neighborhood will come up. Click on the link next to each voter to report what you learned when you had a conversation with them."

VI. "The Donkey": Volunteer Management System

Overview from tinyHorse Solutions:

Designed specifically for the volunteer tracking and campaign management needs of a field program, the Donkey Campaign and Volunteer Management System provides a straightforward and easy to use interface built on the very latest web technologies. Traditionally organizers lose valuable time and data by tracking some information in the voter file and resorting to spreadsheets (which get trashed after the campaign) for calling, scheduling and event building. The Donkey combines the flexibility of individual volunteer spreadsheets and the benefits of centralized scheduling and tracking for accountability and measurement of progress to goal.

Why Do We Need the Donkey?
The Donkey is not a voter file tool but instead is meant to compliment and integrate with an existing voter file solution such as the VAN (or other voter data tools such as Catalist). Every campaign should have access to a modern voter file, however there are limits on the extent to which data in those systems may be customized to the needs of each campaign. The Donkey is meant as a agile campaign and volunteer management tool which can be setup quickly on an as needed basis to specifically match the organization structure and needs of each campaign.

What Exactly Does the Donkey Do?
There are no other current applications for progressive campaigns that fill the same requirements as the Donkey. The best analogy for this system is a 'customer relationship management' or CRM tool, an integral type of sales and contact tracking tool in the corporate world. Existing field and online tools provide an excellent means of communication with large universes of individuals, but lack the precision to effectively manage volunteer data. The Donkey focuses on individual communications shaped around building a relationship with each volunteer rather than bulk voter contact.

Some key highlights of the volunteer management functionality include:

• Easy to use "call screens" offering instant access to information during call time - enter call mode from anywhere you see a list of volunteers.
• Advanced and highly usable calendar functionality (similar to Outlook or Google calendar).
• Complete tracking of any type of event, such as regular phone banks, large rallies and GOTV activities.
• Detailed tracking, searching, and reporting on all communications and scheduled activities for each volunteer.
• Completely custom organizational structure per campaign for flexibility and security.
• Additionally, the Donkey is a campaign management tool as much as it is a volunteer database:
• Centralized system for collecting nightly status reports to ensure staff accountability.
• Real-time manger dashboard providing an up to the second summary of daily numbers and user activity.
• Live 'top callers' and 'top schedulers' sections foster competition among organizers.
• Upload and share documents to distribute scripts and talking points or other materials.

Finally, here are re-posts of two excellent articles about the BOC's technology strategy:

Obama's Wide Net
by ARI MELBER

This article appeared in the January 10, 2008 edition of The Nation.

Despite the different outcomes for his campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire, Barack Obama won among young voters in both states--and more important, he drew them to the polls in unprecedented numbers. People under 30 made up a third of his support in Iowa--four times the margin of victory--and their turnout was up 19 percentage points from 2004 in New Hampshire. Obama has inspired them, just as Howard Dean did last cycle, but the Chicago organizer's campaign excelled by using technology that mobilized new and young voters to actually show up and be counted.

On the night of the Iowa caucuses, Obama's organizers blasted thousands of cellphone text messages to the supporters they had meticulously identified. Younger voters were offered rides. Precinct captains got turnout projections in real time, so they could show undecided caucus attendees that there was statewide momentum. The campaign mobilized others by texting a classic Obama quote, the kind of simple declaration that can sound vague or inspiring, depending on how much idealism you have left: "'In the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it'--Barack. One hour until Caucus starts! Be there by 6:30pm & bring 3 friends!" Hours later, more texts went out by cellphone. One urged tens of thousands of supporters across the country to watch the victory speech on television, while a local message announced victory to exhausted volunteers across Iowa, many of whom were still at their caucus sites. The text replies poured in swiftly. "I have tears of joy in my eyes!" wrote one volunteer at 9:14 pm, and another banged out an exhilarating revelation: "I am so happy & excited for the usa! I can not believe it is about politics! Obama for President!"

In Iowa, Obama's aides systematically used the popular social networking site Facebook for targeting and organizing. Allison York, a 20-year-old Obama supporter and student at Iowa's Drake University, spent six hours of her winter break driving from her parents' Wichita home to Des Moines to a caucus location she found through Facebook. Another student launched a Facebook challenge that recruited more than a million supporters for Obama across the country. And one field organizer created a group for Iowans pledging to caucus for Obama--the first web version of the famous "supporter cards" that candidates urge voters to sign--drawing more than 1,000 people who were not in the party database. "We try to just go where the people are," explained Obama's online organizer in Iowa. "Facebook, because of its size, is where the people are, which is why we've taken it so seriously as a campaign."

Obama's official Facebook profile has about 200,000 "friends"—more than triple Hillary Clinton's network and six times John Edwards's yield. Clinton's top strategists once mocked those numbers, telling reporters, "Our people look like caucus-goers [and Obama's] look like Facebook." But after Clinton placed third in Iowa, they hastily tried to catch up. She toured New Hampshire with students, held "roundtables with young undecided voters," talked up a new idea for a "government blogging team" and launched an "Ask Hillary" Facebook feature on the day of the New Hampshire debate (which was co-sponsored by Facebook and ABC News). Those efforts paid off, giving her a boost among young people above her Iowa showing, but it's probably too late for her to overtake Obama in organic online support. Beyond Facebook, Obama has the most friends on MySpace and BlackPlanet—about 630,000 combined—and the most traffic by far on YouTube, where people can watch him sans media filter. (After Obama's stirring Iowa victory speech was uploaded, his official channel alone spiked by more than 1.5 million views.) Obama is also remarkably popular on apolitical Internet terrain. He regularly ranks atop Eventful, an entertainment site that helps fans join forces to request local concerts by their favorite bands. He netted appearance requests from eighty towns in Iowa and has held his own against rock stars across the country, currently ranking third behind the rap group Wu-Tang Clan.

Obama's aides have not simply been riding a wave of hit websites; they also built their own social networking portal to connect and empower activists. Chris Hughes, a 24-year-old co-founder of Facebook, joined the Obama campaign to build MyBO, which invites users to network, blog and promote grassroots events. Unlike many campaigns that treat web politics as a separate silo, Obama's field program is tightly integrated with MyBO. Iowa organizers were required to post all their events on the site and encouraged to write MyBO blog posts, vetted by the campaign, about local efforts. And the campaign trusts supporters to post whatever they want, from house parties to fundraising ideas to blog commentaries. More than 350,000 people have already created MyBO accounts, posting more than 10,000 grassroots events offline, including 1,000 gatherings where supporters simply wear Obama buttons and do community service in their neighborhoods. No other campaign has a decentralized program like it. While young participants are active, the majority of users, according to the site's administrator, appear to be middle-aged women.

Cheryl Kimmel, 48, is a self-declared "Deaniac" who first learned about Obama when Dean fundraised for Obama's 2004 Senate primary. This month, Kimmel used MyBO to announce a house party for undecided voters. "It's a good way to reach out to people that may be interested but that aren't in the fold," she explained. MyBO is not just for Deaniacs. Frank Dickerson voted for Bush's re-election, but the 59-year-old "recovering Republican" has used it for the past four months to organize events and phone banks at his North Carolina home. His MyBO invitation after Obama's Iowa victory recruited seven new people in a single day, he said, and he is coordinating volunteer trips to South Carolina for the upcoming primary. It's the first time he has ever been politically active.

This kind of self-starting activism could be crucial on February 5, the largest Super Tuesday ever, with primaries in twenty-two states. It is impossible to visit or buy advertising in every state. "Twenty states and all you've got is the candidate on a tarmac--frankly there's not a whole lot that paid media can do," predicts Joe Trippi, who ran Dean's Internet strategy and now works for Edwards. "The traditional old-style top-down centralized campaign structure doesn't work [for this schedule]," he adds, so the key is "to decentralize."

Editor's Note: For more on this subject, see A Conversation with Joe Trippi on TheNation.com.

Obama's 'Gigantic' Database May
Make Him Party's Power Broker
by CHRISTOPHER STERN

This article appeared in the April 28, 2008 edition of Bloomberg.com.

Barack Obama's supporters are giving him more than just record amounts of cash. They also are providing personal information that may make his donor list the most powerful tool in U.S. politics.

Even if the Democratic presidential candidate doesn't succeed in his White House bid, this data will make Obama a power broker in the party for years to come. For the interest groups or Democratic candidates he chooses to sell it to, it would provide a gold mine of information and access to potential donors.

Almost 2 million people have entered personal information on Obama pages on social-networking Web sites such as Facebook, MySpace and his campaign's mybarackobama.com, offering home addresses, phone numbers, their views on specific issues and the names of friends. The data have allowed Obama, 46, to raise more than $200 million, fill sports arenas with supporters across the nation and motivate millions more with custom-tailored messages.

"It's gigantic," said Laura Quinn, chief executive officer of Catalist, a company that maintains a database of 280 million Americans. The list is as "transformational" as the advent of political advertising, she said.

Volunteering Information

The Illinois senator's biggest innovation is in persuading people to enter personal information directly on his campaign's Web site, according to Bill McIntyre, executive vice president of Grassroots Enterprise Inc., a Washington-based Internet marketing firm that advises campaigns.

McIntyre, a Republican and former chief national spokesman for the National Rifle Association, said the data entered by 800,000 names on mybarakobama.com may be worth as much as $200 million.

While in the past, campaigns have cross-referenced lists of registered voters against other records such as credit-card purchases or magazine subscriptions to find potential supporters, Obama's information is more accurate and precise because it relies on data that donors provide themselves.

"When people give information online, they are going to be more truthful and more credible because they are in the privacy of their own environment," said McIntyre.

Republican Effort

It's the kind of detailed information that Republican operatives such as Karl Rove, who directed President George W. Bush's campaigns, excelled at gathering through expensive microtargeting techniques that combine data from several sources. The Democrats responded with Catalist, a similar list- building effort organized by top Clinton campaign adviser Harold Ickes that sells its data to "progressive" causes and candidates, according to its Web site.

Obama's success stems from a decision early in his campaign to embrace the concept of social networking, allowing him to leap ahead of his Democratic rival, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, or the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona. For example, Obama now has 790,000 Facebook "friends," compared with 150,000 for Clinton, 60, and 117,000 for McCain, 71.

Mybarackobama.com, the first social network specifically devoted to a political campaign, is modeled on Facebook. Chris Hughes, a 24-year-old Facebook co-founder, has been a fulltime Obama campaign worker for more than a year and helped develop the candidate's site.

Part of Campaign

When supporters join mybarackobama.com, they become part of the campaign, gaining access to phone bank lists, local events and the ability to contact like-minded people or recruit new ones.

Mybarackobama.com is also a sophisticated data network that allows the campaign to home in on detailed information such as whether a supporter is more concerned about civil liberties, foreign policy, education or energy policy.

People who provide their information on line may not realize that the data they are posting at mybarackobama.com may have a long afterlife and find its way to other campaigns in future election cycles.

According to the Obama campaign's online privacy statement, it reserves the right to "make personal information available to organizations with similar political viewpoints and objectives, in furtherance of our own political objectives."

Fair-Market Value

Federal election laws require campaigns to charge for the use of their data. The campaign must either sell the information or record the transaction as an in-kind contribution at fair-market value.

Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to comment on the value or possible future uses of the data.

Even as Obama's interactive databases prove to be efficient ways to energize volunteers, their ability to raise large amounts of money may outlast the current campaign, said Tad Devine, an independent media consultant.

"That's really what we are talking about here," said Devine, a former strategist for Democrat John Kerry's 2004 presidential bid. "We are talking about a fundraising network that will far surpass the dominance that the Republicans held in the '80s and even in to the '90s."

Obama's list of 1.4 million donors may be an especially strong fundraising tool in the future, Devine said.

"This is something where if this guy sends out a letter saying send some money to someone, suddenly a House candidate can have a half million dollars in a day," said Devine. "That may be what the House candidate was hoping to raise in a quarter."

This ability to produce results ensures Obama will play a prominent role in the future.

"Win or lose, it's his list," McIntyre said.

There's much more, but I'll save it for another time. Their mobile campaign, about which there is much discussion as well, is also quite sophisticated. But that's a whole other discussion.

I hope you've found this interesting and/or informative.

Best, noetical

PS: Here are some more links about the BOC use of technology:

http://www.techpresident.com (has stats on FB and MyS presence, etc.)

http://blogs.computerworld.com/president

http://billives.typepad.com/portals_and_km/2008/04/barack-obamas-a.html

http://webtrends.about.com/od/web20/a/obama-web.htm

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/63406.html?wlc=1220581679

http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/08/27/update-on-the-obama-campaign’s-use-of-the-web/

This Site, the 411

Dear Readers:

I have just started this site to focus on my political postings. With fewer than 60 days left before the 2008 presidential election, I feel it is more important than ever for those of us who are paying attention to highlight and analyze relevant issues.

In order to get the ball rolling here, I've imported several posts from my other blog. I've only included those with political content, but it should offer some background regarding how I think and where I stand on issues. In case you didn't realize from the title, "Beyond the Palin," I'm operating from the perspective of a progressive Democrat. I am an Obama supporter and proud of it. That said, I believe myself to be a thoughtful and analytical consumer of the news and media in general. Furthermore, while there are things I believe that vary from the Democratic platform, on the whole I know Barack Obama and Joe Biden to be the best choice to lead our country forward.

I have already set up several categories, and expect more to come as I go forward. I also hope to invite other friends to post their thoughts to this site, so look for other authors in the future as well.

Following is a description of each of the categories as the stand now:

• Politics: Anything that has political content, with a few subcategories:
  
  
  
  • Campaign '08: Anything that deals with any race in 2008, including congressional and presidential.
  
  
  • Barack Obama: Anything that focuses on Barack Obama.
  
  
  • Joe Biden: Anything that focuses on Joe Biden, Barack Obama's running mate.
  
  
  • John McCain: Anything that focuses on John McCain.
  
  
  • Sarah Palin: Anything that focuses on Sarah Palin, John McCain's running mate.
  
  
  • Hillary Clinton: Anything that focuses on Hillary Clinton.
  
  
  • PUMA: Anything that focuses on those identifying themselves as disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters.
  
  
  
  


• Humor: Anything that I find amusing...you don't have to and may not find these funny, but if I've labeled it with "humor," it's something that made me laugh. Checking out what amuses me might be a good way to learn just how twisted I can be at times.


• Musings & Observations: My general thoughts and observations about this and that.


• Rants: The same as musings and observationals, but expressed with angry zeal.


• Words: I love words; this is a place to share some of my favorites with you.


• Quotes: I love quotes; this is a place to share any with you that make me laugh or think or both.


• It's All About Me: Anything that speaks to who I am. That vague enough? I do have one subcategory called Diary of a Mad eDater. I have several posts that predate finding a wonderful man, with whom I am very happy and have been for over two years now. These posts are about some of my experiences with eDating before my current relationship. I've included them both because they are funny and because they contain some of my best political commentary.


• 411: Bits of information about this blog or the world around us.


• Religion: Anything that focuses on religion, especially its role in our public discourse.


• Old Media: As an avid consumer of both print and televised media, the things I read or watch sometimes inspire me to comment. This category covers such posts. I have included a couple of subcategories here as well.


• Blogs: This is for posts commenting on or recommending other blogs.

Most of my posts are listed in multiple categories, as I find that categories are an easy way for readers to navigate to posts that interest them. When I first started posting, it wasn't possible to "tag" my posts, so I tended to use categories more like tags. I will be tagging my posts as well, in order to avoid putting all my comments in every category. It's a process, but, it should be an interesting journey...at least for me =-)

That's it for now. Please feel free to comment on any post and; let me know if you are interested in becoming a regular author.

Best,

Noetical

Why "Trickle-Down" Economics Has Lost Favor Since Katrina.

ENOUGH!

Last Thursday night, along with about 38 million other Americans, I tuned in to watch Barack Obama give his historic acceptance speech for the nomination of his party. I have to admit that I was already a strong supporter, but I was happy to be so powerfully reminded why. I'm proud to support a candidate who will stand up to the powers that be and say, "ENOUGH!"

As he began to lay out the case for his economic plan, over John McCain's, he obliquely referred to "trickle-down" economics:

"For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy—give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is—you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps—even if you don't have boots. You're on your own.

Well it's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America."

As most people know, this weekend is the three year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina causing 53 different breaches in the levees surrounding greater New Orleans, which led to eighty percent of the city being submerged in water. When I hear the term "trickle-down economics," I can't help but think of those poor souls crowded into that stadium, rain dripping from above, to weather the storm. After spending most of the Labor Day weekend that year, transfixed by the Katrina coverage, I posted a brief response, which listed four words, which had started running through my mind that weekend, and corresponding quotes:

"AMERICA," as in: "Is this really happening in AMERICA?"

"POVERTY," as in: "If you live in POVERTY, you don't have an SUV to drive out of town before the hurricane arrives."

"LEADERSHIP," as in: "People aren't frustrated by the lack of LEADERSHIP, they're dying because of it."

"WATER," as in: "The streets are filled with WATER!" and "Where the fuck is the food and WATER?"

The aforementioned words inspired the following QUOTES OF THE WEEK:

AMERICA:
"I love AMERICA more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."
—James Arthur Baldwin
"If we ever pass out as a great nation we ought to put on our tombstone 'AMERICA died from a delusion that she had moral leadership.'"
—Will Rogers
"I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If AMERICA shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch." (...unless you're poor.)
—George W. Bush

POVERTY:
"It is a tragic mix-up when the United States spends $500,000 for every enemy soldier killed, and only $53 annually on the victims of POVERTY."
—Martin Luther King, Jr.
"The mother of revolution and crime is POVERTY."
—Aristotle
"POVERTY may be the mother of crime, but lack of good sense is the father."
—Jean de la Bruyere
"POVERTY is the worst form of violence."
— Mahatma Gandhi

LEADERSHIP:
"One of the true tests of LEADERSHIP is the ability to recognize a problem before it becomes an emergency."
— Arnold H. Glasgow
"The only safe ship in a storm is LEADERSHIP."
—Faye Wattleton

WATER:
"You don't drown by falling in the WATER; you drown by staying there."
—Edwin Louis Cole
"WATER, WATER, every where, Nor any drop to drink."
—Samuel Taylor Coleridge

I can't help but notice that the quotes I posted that day resonate even more today than they did three years ago.