Edited by Spellcheck

Nike Basketball Advertising Team Makes Hits

2009-08-13T09:41:00.000-07:00

Nike Basketball Advertising Team Makes Hits: "

With the recent ‘Hyperize’ campaign gaining a lot of publicity (good looks, Kai), Complex magazine just released a list of the top 10 Nike basketball commercials of all time. Technically Brand Jordan is a separate company and because many of the most iconic Nike adverts of all time include MJ this list might not be quite the trip down memory lane you were expecting.

That being said, my favorite ad of the group (and one of my favorite 3 advertisements of all time, not sure what the other two are) is embedded below. I remember this was one of the first videos I ever downloaded and I must have watched it on quicktime like 2,000 times. I can still remember spending countless hours in the backyard with the older bro trying to copy all of the moves and then making our own short video. I had the knee dribble down 75% and thought I was super fresh for it.

Post from: Portal A Interactive

Nike Basketball Advertising Team Makes Hits

The Ballad of G.I. Joe

2009-08-10T15:21:00.000-07:00

Just posted on Portal-A site.

Innovative Viral Campaign

2009-08-07T21:22:00.001-07:00

I just posted again on Portal-A.com and want to share it here.

Innovative Viral Campaign

Mad Men Photo Contest

2009-08-07T16:47:00.001-07:00

The one and only Big R (aka Ari King) has just entered a contest to be on Mad Men and i'd love your help pushing him through:

Please click here and then give him 5 stars so that he can win a guest role on the show.

Another Day, Another Cross-Blog Reference

2009-08-05T10:33:00.001-07:00

Independent Women's Football League

Blogging on Portal-A.com

2009-08-04T10:00:00.001-07:00

I'm back blogging on Portal-A.com as we're now trying something new with the blog over there.

Here are the three posts I penned the last two days:

Will Viral Video Kill the Music Video?

Shit! Can I get some help? Weezy?

Happy Birthday, Barack!

Hope you enjoy.

Welcome to the scene, Gabe

2009-08-01T03:22:00.000-07:00

Cousin Gabe has been blogging all summer about his experience living in Mumbai working at a Microfinance Bank for the summer. The fall from grace of his dear Big Papi finally pushed him over the blogging hump--here is his foray into the real world of blogging and it's a home run.

Netflix Competition

2009-07-26T03:15:00.001-07:00

Read the (warning: long) NYT Mag piece about this from many months back. Real interesting--this story could turn into an interesting Spelling Bee-esque documentary.

(I just got reminded about this because it looks like there were some last minute heroics--how crushing must this be for the 2nd place team? Damn.)

Google Labels

2009-07-26T03:11:00.000-07:00

The Evolution of Google Labels

1) Labels are really simple but really useful--everyone should all be using them.
2) This post is interesting--shows the work process at Googs.
3) For those of you who have asked about my work next year and I struggled in response, I think this is what i'm going to be doing (working to develop the new features and then writing posts about how it works and why we did it).

Nate Silver Again...

2009-07-26T03:04:00.001-07:00

I think if I remembered to read 538 daily and also regularly updated the blog I would have at least 4 posts a week titled "Damn, Nate Silver is the perfect kind of smart".

Domain Name Change

2009-07-25T22:40:00.000-07:00

http://will.houghteling--would that be an option?
h/t clayton bigsby (do you have to give credit if it's via GoogleReader?)

National Geographic Photographer

2009-07-25T22:31:00.001-07:00

How awesome would it be to be a photographer for National Geographic? Your job is to travel around the world trying to document the tightest stuff possible.

"Bull Markets Come and Go, Snobbery is Forever"

2009-06-07T08:23:00.000-07:00

The Senior Class Committee made a horrible mistake this year and selected me to deliver the "Ivy Oration" (read: pretentious term for 'funny speech') at Class day.

Here is the video below:

To continue my 10 seconds of fame, my mug was featured (in the background) on the NBC Today show:

Finally, probably the most funny part of the day is my behavior in the background as the Ames award was presented (it was presented right before my own speech, given my blatant practicing):

Listening to this song on repeat--Sky might fall remix

2009-05-13T16:31:00.001-07:00

I listened to the original on repeat 3 weeks and now this.

Much appreciation to my boy Max at Wine and Bowties for opening my eyes to this and countless other gems (both music and non-music). He's one of the best web-curators I know.

Tetris: The Movie

2009-05-12T13:20:00.000-07:00

Newest Video from Portal A. Great stuff.

What makes us happy? Atlantic Article

2009-05-12T09:27:00.000-07:00

Fascinating article about one of the most widely discussed and exhaustively implemented longtidunal studies in history, the Grant Study, which followed 268 men who entered Harvard in the 1930s over 70+ years.

From the "Should be an Onion article" files..

2009-05-06T20:28:00.001-07:00

The Swine Flu is laughable. I called it from the beginning.

(This is about the biggest self-jinx ever).

Stand By Me

2009-04-28T18:08:00.001-07:00

This video is an incredible example of the power of the internet to connect distant people and thus allow for group creation:

http://gizmodo.com/5231112/best-video-ive-seen-today-will-make-you-smile

Make sure to read the story as you watch it.

Decriminalization in Portugal

2009-04-28T14:34:00.000-07:00

Worked incredibly well. How does Barack "Let's just enact policies that work" Obama respond?

Frank Caliendo

2009-04-28T14:04:00.001-07:00

Absolutely incredible impersonations:

Response to Friedman piece

2009-04-23T08:21:00.001-07:00

h/t to Gabe on this one:
Response to Friedman piece

Link to actual McKinsey Report

I agree that it's going to all about how creative/innovative Arne Duncan is willing to get. The two things that seem to matter in closing this achievement gap is increasing teacher quality (which inevitably includes firing the bad teachers) and making sure students continue to learn after the standard 9-3 school day (which likely means extending the school day and shortening summer breaks, a la KIPP). Right now Obama is taking a very easy tack--"We need to invest in education and everything is on the table". Educational research is showing it more and more clear what will work and that includes some choices that will most definitively anger the Teacher's Unions--let's hope Obama is willing to actually "do what's best for the students" and piss off some of the teachers in the process.

Yet another reason I care so much about education...

2009-04-23T08:10:00.001-07:00

...here's the link to the economy.

Interesting side fact highlighted in the piece: 35% of black Seniors at Harvard applied to Teach for America. Wow.

People predicted this would happen..

2009-04-23T08:00:00.001-07:00

..but don't know if anyone thought a high school Junior would leave to Europe so soon. If this is the outcome of the NBA rule prohibiting high school grads from directly entering the draft, isn't this a bad thing?

How to Raise IQ

2009-04-16T18:59:00.000-07:00

How to Raise IQ

Chester French Mixtape

2009-04-14T12:32:00.001-07:00

Just downloaded it for free and i'm pretty impressed. This general trend of mixtapes being free online is phenomenal.

http://chesterfrench.com/mixtape/index_homepage.html

Immigration and Jobs--where foreign workers come from

2009-04-14T10:22:00.001-07:00

NYT Interactive is doing incredible work

via steller

The YouTube Presidency

2009-04-12T19:17:00.000-07:00

The YouTube Presidency

MINE--New magazine thingamajig

2009-04-06T00:27:00.001-07:00

Don't know if this will be cool or just utterly bizarre, but I love reading the printed page and at this price couldn't say no.

Top 10 Tools for a Free Online Education

2009-04-05T22:35:00.000-07:00

Top 10 Tools for a Free Online Education

Hopefully I can crack the top 10 on this list at some point.

Incredible

2009-04-02T16:45:00.001-07:00

MIT Media Lab is incredible.

Part II

2009-03-21T01:15:00.001-07:00

Part II

Why Nate Silver is One of the Smartest and Shrewdest People I've Ever Read

2009-03-21T00:23:00.001-07:00

Perfect.

Kayak for Event Tickets

2009-03-20T19:08:00.001-07:00

I've been looking for a company like this for awhile:

The internet has so much information that whoever can organize most effectively wins (read: Google).

Future of Newspapers

2009-03-16T10:55:00.001-07:00

This piece doesn't provide many answers but this guy can certainly write and he does a good job explaining how newspapers got into this mess (on a more philosophical level).

Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable

Clay Shirky is a Professor at NYU's Graduate Interactive Telecommunications Program and a new media expert.

Articles like this...

2009-03-13T01:41:00.001-07:00

...make me really happy about the new administration.

Think on Monday, Present on Thursday

2009-03-12T14:17:00.000-07:00

The gang at Portal A is up to some really cool and innovative stuff right now. Nate and Kai developed a new show concept in which all short-video ideas are created on Monday afternoon and then Tues/Wednes are spent writing, filming, editing for a release of the final product on Thursday. It's an exciting and spontaneous ride that puts the viewer behind the scenes of the creative process (with videos on Mon, Tues, and Wednes presenting the "Making of the video" in anticipation of the final Thursday showing).

This week is the launch of the concept and while there are still some kinks to be worked out, I think generally it went wonderfully. The concept for this week is "Create the ending to a suspense/thriller." For now let me walk you through the process but please head over to Portal-A.com for the full running commentary.

Coming up with the concept:

Behind the Scenes 1:

Behind the Scenes 2:

FINAL PRODUCT (Please click through and watch it in HD--it's really remarkable how high quality online video can be now):

KanYe's an artist for the 21st Century

2009-03-10T16:32:00.000-07:00

I like Kanye. I used to think he was too damn full of himself but he consistently comes out with great music and creative videos. However, I used to love him cause I thought he was the most innovative out there--he wears weird gear, has strange friends, and has unique interests. Recently I realized he's not the most creative or the most futuristic artist--he's a glorified content aggregator.

His wildly popular blog is all links and videos--he finds other great content on the web and presents it to his audience. I guess his ability to find the content in the first place (and his eye on what's worth sharing and what's not) is valuable, but I'd rather hear some new opinions.

His music:

At first I was uncertain if this sampling was tight of him or weak of him. On one hand he's sampling from a ton of different artists, showing a diversity of interests that is impressive. On the other hand, he's often taking more than just the beat. Not that cool. I'm still into Kanye, just making me wonder who is really coming up with new shit anymore.

EDIT: This is why I feel Kanye though. He produced this Kid Cudi song to sound a lot like 808s and I literally have listened to it 25 times in the past day:

The Meaning of Online Video

2009-03-04T16:38:00.000-08:00

This post was originally published on the site of the company that I helped found, Portal-A Interactive.

Amidst the recent debate over Boxee and Hulu I began to think about the unique structural elements of online video. The success of Hulu and other professional-content providers (network shows essentially) in the online video space has momentarily (or permanently) distorted what I believe was the original value proposition of online video.

Most broadly the internet is a remarkable content publishing platform because it allows the user/creator to circumvent traditional media channels and corporate conglomerates and bring opinions and content directly to the people, asking them to vote with their eyeballs. While the growth of the blogosphere certainly has its downside (which I discuss one aspect of here on my own personal blog), it brought about a remarkable media-consumption revolution. No longer do a few key news sources serve as my lenses to view the world--I didn't only rely on the paid journalists at the NYT or WSJ (companies heavily reliant on corporate ad dollars) to analyze this past election, I checked out 538 daily and read my friend's opinions as well.

The benefit of this media-consumption change is that individual writers untethered to the corporate news structure can afford to be more risky, controversial or (hopefully) creative than the pros. That doesn't mean that they are always (or ever) better, but it does mean that they can push the envelope and push my own thinking in turn. Not all of them will be successful (think about how many blogs have no readers) but at least in theory there is now a marketplace of ideas with negligibly barriers to entry--may the best content get my views.

Ideally online video should serve a similar end--online video should be the more dangerous, risky and creative cousin of traditional TV. Online video creators are never going to beat their broadcast or cable TV brethren at creating high quality content--the budgets are smaller, actors worse, and audiences smaller. However, online video creates incredible opportunities to take risks. The barriers to entry and to distribute content are negligible--it is free to post to YouTube (or anywhere else) and videos are often spread for free virally. Regardless, too many video producers are trying to mimic the style of TV and are failing because of it--it's a worse viewing experience online and the content is almost certainly going to be less professional. Seth McFarlane's Cavalcade of Comedy is one of the rare examples of TV-talent who moved to the online space as a means to both make money (through an innovative deal with the Google Content Network) and try out some alternative concepts that aren't allowed by the FCC or the people at FOX.

Here at Portal-A we try to keep all of this in mind when we create unique online-exclusive content. We recognize that no one is Ghostriding Volvo's on NBC and we're happy with that--it's a funny niche activity that people enjoyed (2.1M views and countless spinoffs). While there are plenty of music videos on TV, no one is producing rap battles between Bankers and Consultants. While not all of our videos are going to be hits, we're going to work to keep trying to create unique content that pleases, and pushes, our fans.

Please check out Portal-A.com for more interesting content.

I'm Sorry Rush

2009-03-04T12:14:00.001-08:00

I love that the Dems are going after him like this: www.imsorryrush.com The Rush Limbaugh wing of the GOP is the side of the party that is stubbornly idealistic, impossible to deal/reason with, and antithetical to any meaningful progress. I'm glad the Dems are finally getting tough on this and attacking Rush's brand of humor with some of their own.

I hate to ever shine a bad light on my native city..

2009-02-22T22:10:00.001-08:00

But I thought this article was fascinating:

This is a topic that I almost never see discussed--the social good of investigative journalism. Will the demise of local newspapers/media lead to a rise in unpunished crimes? Although the national papers will likely still cover the large-scale frauds or illegal activity, who is going to go after the local crooks? Generally the intellectual elite frown upon local news--too much riff-raff, not enough intellectual heavyweights writing, subpar reporting etc etc. The blogosphere was almost pleased to announce the demise of the Seattle Post Intelligencer but who is going to fill that void of investigative journalism? Sitting at your desk writing sub-par op-eds is easy (I do it!), but who is going to do the leg work to dig up the real findings?

Local newspaper's value-proposition is that they can cover the local community better than anyone else. The Oakland Tribune (or whatever local paper) should drop all discussion of national events or commentary on larger social issues and focus exclusively on the local events (didn't Malcolm Gladwell write about some newspaper in the South that has managed to weather this storm--and even increase readership--by simply mentioning as many local people's names as possible?). Is this a new business model?

Incredible Ad

2009-02-22T17:15:00.001-08:00

via andrew sullivan

Portal-A.Com

2009-02-19T16:56:00.001-08:00

Over the past year and a half I've worked with my older brother Nate Houghteling and his best friend from high school, Kai Hasson, to start a new media production and viral marketing company, Portal A Interactive.

Today we finally launched our website, Portal-A.com. It is a very exciting time for us as a company as we're currently finishing up a 4 month project with an eLearning company in NYC to produce 500 short educational videos for the newly-launched site VocabVideos.com and moving onto some other exciting projects. Most notably we're hoping to build up a solid fanbase and launch our own web series in the next few months. This site is both a destination for us to showcase our new projects and also to comment on the industry more broadly. I'll be blogging on portal-a.com semi-regularly and will try to link to all of those posts from here (here's my first blog).

I encourage you to take some time to watch some of our past videos and read some of the recent pieces. Enjoy!

sOccket

2009-02-18T21:36:00.001-08:00

Please go and vote for the sOccket in Dells' Social Innovation Competition. A friend of mine is on the development team and it's an incredible invention:

"Our innovation is the sOccket, a soccer ball with the capacity to harness the energy of interaction with the ball during game-play for later use as a power source. It is a portable energy-harvesting device in the form of a soccer ball that captures the impact energy normally dissipated when the ball is kicked, storing it to charge batteries and lights. This supplemental electricity can improve health and environment, and promote education and community building."

Education

2009-02-16T17:29:00.001-08:00

Real good op-ed piece by Nicholas Kristof about the current state of education in America. The American educational system (and particularly the entrepreneurial responses to this issue) is something I've become increasingly fascinated by.

Really excited to read these two books when I finish my thesis:
The Race Between Education and Technology
Work Hard, Be Nice

Drake

2009-02-15T11:52:00.001-08:00

Almost never will I put music up here, but i've been inspired by Max at Wine and Bowties.

If you like Wayne and R&B, this is perfect. 'Best I've Ever Had' should be the first stop. 'Let's Call the Whole Thing Off' next.

"The Dangerous Center"

2009-02-09T12:43:00.001-08:00

Sometimes compromise isn't beneficial.

My biggest fear about this administration is that Obama is more interested in transforming the political climate than he is about effectively governing. This has been a consistent trend throughout his own meteoric political ascent—in his short political career he was all too happy to attach his name to non-controversial legislation for ethics reform or government transparency but rarely put his foot down for any principled stands (insulting either party). His own personal biography leads him to believe that there is a workable middle ground between disparate cultures, opinions or beliefs. To this date he has done an incredible job navigating the fine line—using his own charm, charisma and intellect to inspire people to action or support him politically. I forget who said it first, but Obama's fundamental flaw may be that he underestimates the depth of division and disagreement in Washington while being overly-confident about his own abilities to bridge these diametrically opposed groups or ideas.

Compromises are often politically expedient but substantively damaging. Often times there are areas where compromises that bring both sides to the table make sense (environmental issues come to mind) but other times there is right and wrong and a compromise that leaves both sides upset is neither effective nor normatively beneficial.

Post-partisan should not be about finding a compromise or middle-ground for every ideological debate. Post-partisan should be about picking-and-choosing the best policies or programs (or at least experimenting with ideas from all ends of the spectrum) regardless of ideological foundation or partisan label. For example, if school vouchers effectively raise academic achievement in low-income communities Obama should adopt that policy immediately regardless of its label as a "Republican" program. Creating the actual 'government that works' (which he hyped in his inaugural address) is Obama's opportunity to transform the political stalemate in Washington.

Some of my close friends might note today as my first ever public admittance of doubt or disapproval of Obama or of the current administration. I don't think Obama is a phony. I don't think he operates or governs for poll-numbers or his place in history. I think he wants to transform the political climate in America for the benefit of the American people, NOT because he wants to BE a transformational figure in American history. Watching the piece (posted earlier) about Obama's term in charge at the Harvard Law Review only exacerbated my fears—that even though he was in charge no one really knew where he stood. I've brushed off my fears previously by reminding myself "to get to the top he knew the path he had to take and what he could and could not say." I took a leap of faith on whether or not he'd deliver on the principles and beliefs I was somehow certain he held ("everything else is right with Obama, he MUST believe X, Y, and Z also). Now is the time for him to follow through—he can't really be silent as President—and I hope he doesn't let a desire to not offend or disparage opponents get in the way of governing.

Note: I recognize the long-term power of a political coalition or the benefits of increased political capital that comes with bipartisan appeal, but sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too. This is likely the most important thing he'll do this term (with universal health care a close #2) and it'd be a shame for political expediency to get in the way of effective government.

Bill Gates Trying To Change the World

2009-02-07T12:41:00.000-08:00

This is an incredible speech that everyone should take the time to watch (and has received a lot of press because of the swarm of mosquitos he releases into the audience at the 5:10 mark). The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is an awesome force for good in the world and I think they're really taking the right approach to philanthropy. The two missions they focus most directly on--eradicating malaria in Africa and improving education within the United States--are two goals that I personally find very, very worthwhile.

Some choice quotes:
"There is more money spent in the US every year on science research for male baldness than malaria"
"If you are low-income in the United States you have a higher chance of going to jail than completing a four year degree"
"A top quartile teacher will increase their classes average test scores by over 10% in a single year... what that means is that if everyone in the United States was taught by top quartile teachers for two years, the entire difference between us and Asia would go away, and within four years we would be blowing everyone in the world away."

If you don't know about the TED talks either, it's a great resource and take some time to explore.

Bringing Internet to Rural Areas

2009-02-02T08:21:00.001-08:00

Very rarely do I use this blog as a vehicle to discuss my own personal ambitions but this is an area I'm very interested in.

When Internet connections arrive in small towns like Entasopia, they put new tools into the hands of people hungry to use them, and for some there, that has had wide repercussions.
James Mathu has worked for the Kenyan agriculture ministry in Entasopia for five years, advising farmers on the environment, crop husbandry and soil conservation. The stable Internet link allows him to send information to district headquarters in Kajiado, instead of spending days traveling there and back to deliver monthly reports, which are too lengthy for him to send via cellphone.
"It is a five-day affair," he said, estimating that the Internet saved him 12,000 shillings a year, or $152, in a country where the gross domestic product per person is $1,700.

I think the real future here is bringing the mobile web to forgotten/economically depressed areas (both throughout the world and also within our own country). This is Mohammed Yunus's next big idea and something I saw with my own eyes in Langa, a township outside Cape Town.

Viral Marketing Essay

2009-01-31T13:24:00.001-08:00

This is an essay I wrote as part of a job application. In the spirit of open-everything, figured i'd post it here.

The Burgeoning Field of Viral Marketing:
Kobe Bryant Jumps Over a Speeding Aston Martin as Nike Clears the Competition

In recent years there has been a decline in the effectiveness of brand advertising as a result of over-saturation, increasing consumer skepticism and hardware inventions such as TiVo that allow viewers to avoid advertisements (Leskovec 2007). As a result, companies have been forced to develop innovative strategies and find alternative delivery channels to reach customers, build brand affinity, and engage users. The Internet has played a critical role in this marketing revolution, as it has provided myriad opportunities for companies to engage with consumers and promote products. Google's AdWords and AdSense programs harnessed the power of the Internet as an information aggregator and revolutionized the field of direct response marketing. Likewise, Nike's recent viral marketing campaign to promote its 'Hyperdunk' basketball shoes was revolutionary because it harnessed the social power of the Internet to increase brand awareness and affinity.
    Nike's guerilla online advertisement for the 'Hyperdunks' was an early example of a large corporation utilizing the power of viral videos to target key demographics, increase user engagement and build awareness. The video purposefully mimics an amateur YouTube production in order to maximize its authenticity--shot with a low-quality camera on a nondescript rooftop garage, it depicts Kobe Bryant talking about his new shoes before jumping clear over an Aston Martin speeding underneath him as his teammate stares on in horror. The video was released online without any related mainstream media campaign nor an explicit connection to either Nike or Weiden + Kennedy, the advertising company responsible for the content.   The video's dangerous subject matter and the inevitable debate that arose over whether the footage had been doctored only added to its mysterious allure. Nike hoped that the unique content and release would help the advertisement become a successful 'viral video', a video that gains mass internet popularity through peer-to-peer connections, sharing on social media sites and embedding on popular blogs. Viral video ads can be intrinsically more compelling than traditional ads because they are passed from friend to friend rather than pushed by the company, thus increasing their authenticity and more thoroughly engaging the viewer. As a result of significant word-of-mouth activity the video garnered over six million views on YouTube and was shown and discussed on ESPN and TNT broadcasts without payment from Nike.    This advertising spot illustrated the potential for viral marketing in three major ways. First, it amassed a huge number of impressions with minimal capital expenditure; Nike didn't have to pay for its distribution across any medium.   Second, it represented a significant shift in the way consumers typically engage with marketing content. Nike managed to create interactive online material by stylistically mimicking the typical amateur YouTube video, thus pushing viewers to become both detectives and 'product evangelists' (Kawasaki). Third, Nike expanded its traditional marketing reach using viral video to tap into viewer's social networks—the video had a 'cool' or 'wow' factor that transcended the market of shoe enthusiasts and reached a wider online entertainment audience.
    While this campaign was not the first to tap into the power of online social connections, Nike's 'Hyperdunk' campaign altered the online advertising landscape because of its informal style and 'viral' release. Previous popular online videos such as Burger King's 'subservient chicken' or Nike's 'Ronaldinho: Touch of Gold' were explicitly connected to the company and coincided with a traditional mainstream media rollout. Since the Nike 'Hyperdunk' advertisement, there have been multiple campaigns that mimic Nike's guerilla approach, such as Levi's "Backflipping into Jeans" and Gatorade's "Ballgirl Catch". Companies like XLNTAds and Zadby create a market between large companies and niche content producers to profit from this growing demand. Although advertising spending is likely to decline in aggregate in the coming year or two, viral marketing spending will increase. A survey of executives at the top 40 creative agencies firms indicated that 72% of clients, representing all industries, expressed interest in using viral video as a critical part of their marketing strategy next year (FeedCompany). Advertising executives are intrigued by the potential for exponential views and brand development.
    Despite enthusiasm for the medium, there are still significant stumbling blocks in this nascent field. While the 'Hyperdunk' campaign was revolutionary, it was by no means perfect. Online brand lift advertising lacks immediate metrics to gauge impact or return on investment, critical components of any successful strategy. Impressions, click-through rates and YouTube views are insufficient to measure the bottom-line impact of the video's exposure. Additionally, there are ethical and long-run consumer trust concerns that result from blurring the line between entertainment and advertising, appropriately dubbed 'viral murketing' by some. However, pushing the bounds with bold content is nothing new. Around twenty years ago Weiden + Kennedy created a series of iconic advertisements for Nike such as "Bo knows best", "Mars Blackmon" and Charles Barkley's "I am not a role model" that similarly pushed the envelope and blurred the line between entertainment and marketing. Finally, it is risky to allow customers to participate in the branding process as the openness could lead to brand mismanagement if the video is embedded somewhere inappropriate or user-generated feedback includes troublesome behavior.
    Despite consumers' rising desensitivity towards traditional advertisements, this campaign managed to engage viewers, create brand affinity and instigate public discussion by harnessing the social power of this new medium. Weiden + Kennedy didn't simply apply the concepts of broadcast or print advertising to online video, they built a campaign to exploit the unique characteristics inherent to the new media space. The minimal distribution costs gave them the opportunity to take larger production and distribution risk, and helped them define a new genre instead of working at the margins of the previous one. In the future, this type of campaign could easily be integrated with the formation of a social networking community such as the Nike+ community for runners. A nearly identical social network created for pick-up basketball players to organize games or connect off the court could accompany this viral marketing campaign.   This social network would extend forward-thinking brand development, increase user engagement, and create a loyal community of customers.

Incredible Photo Gallery

2009-01-22T12:37:00.000-08:00

Amazing Photo Gallery

Residents of Kibera, one of the poorest quarters in Nairobi gather to watch the inauguration ceremony of US President Barack Obama in Nairobi on January 20, 2009

Yes

2009-01-22T09:49:00.001-08:00

Yes

Reaction to 2004 DNC Speech

2009-01-20T11:55:00.000-08:00

On this historic day it's fascinating to look back at Obama's political roots. It's an incredibly unlikely journey and shocking how fast Barack's ascent was. This video gives me chills every time I watch it (not to mention how impressive the DNC speech itself was):

"This is like watching Tiger Woods play his first tournament"

"Forget uniters and dividers, this guy's a transcender"

Nah We Straight

2009-01-19T19:32:00.000-08:00

Focus in at 1:05.

This place, Ben's Chili, is supposedly swarmed with people now and hour long lines. President as celebrity.

via Wine and Bowties and Fof-Deez

"The Long Search for Kennedy's successor"

2009-01-19T19:31:00.001-08:00

Here's an interesting piece by Matt Bai, a phenomenal NYT writer (writing here in the Independent) who I was fortunate enough to see/meet at Harvard's IOP. It's long and not the single most illuminating piece written about this incredible moment in history, but worth a read if you have the time.

Unreal Visually

2009-01-19T17:17:00.000-08:00

I command you to watch this video in full screen. The stuff at the beginning isn't as insane but by the end it's pretty awe-inspiring...

wingsuit base jumping from Ali on Vimeo.

Interesting Video

2009-01-18T10:32:00.001-08:00

Any of the videos about Obama's early years I find fascinating.

Here's a good one about his time running for the Law Review. What always amazes me is his intellectual continuity throughout very discontinuous personal times.

Bigger than Bush...

2009-01-02T11:03:00.001-08:00

Good Krugman Piece on the Racial Attitudes of the Republican Party

Paul Krugman does a good job here summarizing a lot of my own thoughts over the past year or so. Writing my thesis on the intersection of race and politics I've spent ample time considering these issues. Throughout the election I was suprised that more columnists/political pundits didn't attack the Republican party for bandying the term 'real American' about without ever providing a definition (as the practical definition is dangerously close to anti-minority, anti-gay, anti-'educated elite'). The entire strategy of 'otherizing' Obama and/or calling him a 'tax-and-spend liberal' I found to be laced with subtle racial appeals as well (as I wrote about in a previous post).

Luckily the American people were too smart and too tolerant (and likely too tired of incompetent leadership elected to power on the basis of cultural similarity that unequally rewarded supporters ) to be influenced heavily by these divisive terms.

Reminds me of this great clip from West Wing.

Wish there were more Democratic consultants like this. I wonder if one result of this election is that Republicans will stop using the term 'liberal' to insult their opponents? I doubt it.

The Continued Branding of the Presidency...

2009-01-02T10:46:00.001-08:00

Obamabilia for Sale

Not sure I like this trend of commercializing the oval office. On the other hand, people are dying to buy this kind of memorabilia and why can't/shouldn't the government make money off of it (acting as a private retailer would) rather than corporations?

Note the tweets...

2008-12-31T11:28:00.001-08:00

I've conveniently added my twitter feed to the sidebar of the blog so those of you who are not active on twitter can still follow my short-form public commenting. That being said, it might be a bit of 'will houghteling OD' but figured it couldn't hurt to include..

BTW--Twitter is a fascinating social experiment. There have been countless discussions about the difficulty of monetizing the user activity, but i'm far more interested to read a 'civic engagement' review of the forum from a web 2.0 version of Robert Putnam. Does anyone know of such a piece?

The death of brand advertising?

2008-12-25T14:56:00.001-08:00

Interesting article worth a read about how this recession has led to the death of brand advertising (as it has forced advertisers to be more conscious of ROI on their adverts).

The relevant question for my own interests (and also kind of the future of advertising/marketing): is viral marketing merely the newest 'intelligent' fad promoted by smart people wanting to go into the advertising/marketing world, or is an entirely new form of advertising that is drastically more effective? My (self-interested) argument would be that because viral marketing relies on infiltrating social networks it has much more authenticity and therefore is more effective than traditional brand marketing (albeit related in present lack of clear metrics). The over-saturation of commercials in our society trained viewers to both avoid and be suspicious of mainstream advertising. However, people still trust their friend's opinions--note the proliferation/popularity of peer-to-peer suggestion sites (Yelp! LinkedIn, various peer-to-peer search start-ups).

The key to the future of viral marketing is the development of metrics to accurately measure the effect of the pitches. Until those stats disprove my previous thoughts about authenticity, viral marketing appears to be a cost-effective method for companies to generate internet buzz (and often mainstream publicity) and either push products or build brand affinities.

Hat tip to Adam Katz for the original article.

Note the new blog title

2008-12-23T20:05:00.001-08:00

Rant and Roll was a copy off Chuck Klosterman. Observations in Progress sounded like a memoir chronicling the women's movement.

Edited by Spellcheck fits the ethos of this forum--write, rant and don't look back.

Tip to Gaberz for the suggestion.

What did these people do?

2008-12-23T00:16:00.001-08:00

Investment managers who invested a large percent of their money under management in Madoff.

For analysts at the shop run by the GMAC guy (the place had nearly 100% of money under management w/ Madoff)-what the HELL did they do during the day? Watch YouTube for 10 straight hours?

The End of an Era...

2008-12-22T23:38:00.001-08:00

Today I unsubscribed from the OCS SummerList...I really am starting to feel like i'm set on the path to adulthood and there's no turning back. A momentous (symbolic) occasion...

The final e-mail from my secret (e-mail) lover Nancy Saunders? "Crimson on the Cuyahooga Summer Internship"--an e-mail that's been sent at least 20 times, but I still have aboslutely no idea what the hell it means.

Next stop, unsubscribing from OCSInternational...

Design

2008-12-16T23:35:00.000-08:00

I don't consider myself a visual savant or creative genius in any way (as my 3 in AP Studio Art after completing a 'year-long project' in two weeks demonstrated), but I greatly enjoy looking at innovative creative work along a variety of medium's.

I'm currently working with my brother, Kai and a graphic designer in SF to design a logo for our new company and it's really got me thinking about graphic design. It is the most proletariat method of artistic communication--everyone engages with the work of graphic designers daily (from website user interface to cereal box design) while 'high-art' is limited to the halls of museums (although some would argue that 'high-art' influences aesthetic norms that drive graphic design).

Putting the theoretical discussion aside--the Obama campaign got a lot of press for it's beautiful branding and elegant logo work. Earlier today I came across this fascinating article about the logo's various iterations:

http://www.logodesignlove.com/obama-08-logo-design-options

Here's another article about the top book designs of the year. Some of these are incredibly creative and powerful:

http://nytimesbooks.blogspot.com/2008/11/my-favorites-of-2008.html

Hope you all enjoy scanning as much as I did.

"This is why you should be president"

2008-12-11T20:51:00.001-08:00

Earlier tonight I had the fortune of attending the Institute of Politics "Inside the 2008 Campaign: War Stories" event featuring David Axelrod and David Plouffe, Obama's #1 and 2 on the campaign trail, and Rick Davis and Bill McIntyre, arguably McCain's numbers 1 and 3. This was an incredible event and the kind of night/atmosphere that makes me thankful to go to a place as resource-laden as Harvard (and kick myself for not utilizing these resources more often).

While there were a ton of great takeaways and memorable moments, one anecdote is seared into my mind. Responding to Gwen Ifill's question about the response to the Reverend Wright fiasco, David Axelrod said (and i'm paraphrasing):

After spending a full day on TV responding to the story that had recently broke about Reverend Wright, Barack called us and said 'I need to make a speech. I have a lot to say on the issue and think that I could add some valuable insight if given the right forum. I might not be the nominee because of this speech, but it's one I have to make.' We knew this was more than a political issue to Barack and we realized that because of his unique personal story and incredible talent he was completely up to the task so we let him be. That night, after tucking his kids to bed, Barack began to write the speech on his own. He wrote until three in the morning, then woke up at 8am and campaigned all day until 9:30 at night. After that, he went back into his office and went back to writing a speech he had to give in less than twelve hours that would likely dictate his political future. I went to sleep before him that night, knowing that he would say everything that needed to be said and would say it perfectly. I woke up at 2am and saw an e-mail from him on my blackberry with the speech attached. I thumbed through it and wrote back one line--This is why you should be President.

Check out our website!

2008-11-18T23:18:00.001-08:00

Over the past year or two I've helped to co-found a new media production and viral marketing company with my older brother and his best friend from high school, Kai Hasson, a filmmaker from Yale. A few weeks ago we launched a basic version of our website:

www.portal-a.com

We're now working on launching a more advanced site in the coming month or two so please let me know if you have any feedback on features you'd love to see included in the more full-form site.

Colin Powell on Meet the Press

2008-10-19T15:48:00.000-07:00

While I don't think this endorsement will help Obama very much, everyone should watch this clip of Powell on Meet the Press.

If you are strapped for time, just watch from 4:30 onwards. Powell provides poignant commentary to an issue that has not been tackled thoroughly enough in the press.

Watching this makes me wonder, could Powell have beaten Clinton in '92 or '96?

Recruiting Season

2008-10-18T12:18:00.001-07:00

Me: Why the hell are you wearing socks with sandals? It doesn't flow with those snazzy designer jeans.
Anonymous Chaunce: Cause of this:

Me: Ooo... that's nasty. That's a high school 'didn't wear the soccer cleats before the first day of JV tryouts' style blister. You go running in your new tennis shoes?
Anonymous Chaunce: No man, my loafers. It's such a long walk to that interview room.
Me: (Speechless).

Note: Photo is of actual chaunce (and hence actual blister). Note Lamont carpet.

Again, Drudge Sucks

2008-10-13T11:20:00.000-07:00

Matt Drudge is horrible. How does he have the readership and influence he does? The guy has no formal education. He worked at 7-11 and a CBS gift-shop in Hollywood before lucking into some gossip (twice, actually) and starting his new media empire. How come there haven't been other news aggregators that are genuinely 'fair and balanced' that can't overtake him? As much as I hate him, I still go to his page first almost every time I get on the computer just to see if there is some huge new story that has dropped.

This is the current 'above the fold' photo on his site, with the headline "READY FOR COMEBACK?'

Right below that, is this image, with no headline attached:

The column below is "Obama goes door-to-door to drum up votes". The article does not include the photograph Drudge linked to. This photo is an ugly racist appeal, much like this famous anti-Harold Ford ad from the 2006 TN Senate campaign (Watch until the end of the ad to see the blatant racial appeal).

Associated Press: "Cindy McCain, You're Full O' Shit"

2008-10-10T00:46:00.001-07:00

I thought the AP only reported facts and left the editorializing for everyone else. I guess this is 'only reporting facts' in that they gave percentage of negative advertisements by each campaign without saying anything explicit further. The structure of 'Cindy quote' then 'fact making her look stupid' makes it pretty easy to read between the lines--Sparknotes analysis states "This author thinks Cindy McCain is full of crap". This is yet another sign how absurd the McCain campaign has turned in the past couple weeks..

The second best part of this is that Drudge posted this article with the link title "Cindy McCain: 'Obama is running the dirtiest campaign in history'. Over these past two weeks as McCain took an enormous skydive in the polls Drudge has hardly linked to any pieces describing McCain's freefall. Matt, you too are full of shit.

Racist Advertisement

2008-10-09T19:08:00.000-07:00

I am not as opposed to the ad itself as I am to the horrific slogan at the end: "Barack Obama: Too Risky for America"

It reminds me of the slogan of Bernard Epton, the Republican candidate for Mayor of Chicago in 1982, running against Harold Washington, who was attempting to be the first black mayor of the city: "Epton for Mayor--Before It's Too Late"

Speaking in terms of political strategy, I really don't think this ad will help the McCain campaign. In this frightening time with economic depression looming, will people respond to a blatantly provocative ad about a 6-month old news item? The McCain camp is losing badly right now, and they are losing because of the economy. I highly doubt subtle racial appeals this late in the game will help his campaign and they have a distinct chance of both ruining McCain's reputation and causing even more electoral backlash: "My family's financial future is at stake and McCain is complaining about a radical loose friend/acquaintance of Obama's who hasn't been relevant in 30 years! Where's 'country first' leadership on this financial disaster?"

Everyone knows Obama is black and most people are cemented in their racial opinions: either they never had a problem, they've gotten over their trepidation or they've decided they absolutely can't vote for a black guy.

'The Talk'

2008-10-09T18:49:00.000-07:00

I get about four e-mails a day from the Obama campaign. 90% of them I skim and move on quickly. An e-mail sent earlier today entitled 'The Talk' (and most likely targeted directly to me because I am young and have volunteered before, proving my idealism + commitment) caught my attention.

This link includes essentially everything the e-mail discussed.

This e-mail is classic Obama campaign brilliance as it characterizes both the social networking/ new media efforts of the campaign and the grassroots/ neighbor-to-neighbor approach to voter persuasion/GOTV.

The McCain campaign e-mails are uninspired and don't have nearly the galvanizing power of Obama's. Maybe i'm biased because i'm an avid Obama supporter, but this latest e-mail, in conjunction with the iPhone App released lately and the neighbor-to-neighbor phonebanking tool pushed heavily (among countless other new media strategies) proves Obama is blowing John "I don't know how to e-mail" McCain out of the internet strategy game. I'm genuinely excited to see what the Obama folks pull out of their caps for GOTV as I truly believe disastrous turn-out (unlikely) is the only foreseeable stumbling block to an Obama White House.

Twitter

2008-10-09T00:28:00.000-07:00

Although I absolutely despise the phrase 'tweet' (doesn't anyone remember that horrific R&B song from 5 years ago??) I decided to join Twitter today. Follow me: my name (screen name?) is rantnroll. I figure it fits my format better in that I can write short, punchy statements without the need to run literary circles around myself or back up any of my outrageous claims.

My first 'tweet':

recent review: http://tinyurl.com/47uhjo

McCain's 'Campaign Suspension' Ploy

2008-09-26T17:36:00.000-07:00

When I first heard about McCain's campaign suspension ploy, I thought to myself "Fuck! Obama should have thought of that first". I still think it was a net smart move, but for an entirely different reason than most ring-wing pundits are claiming: It ruined Obama's debate preparation.

Those who loved McCain saw the campaign suspension as an honorable, country first, presidential move. Those who hate him saw it as yet another political ploy from a campaign that has continually taken the low road while talking about the high road. For independents it probably played as some of each. In the end, it was a net wash.

Where the ploy was very successful was that it changed Obama's pre-Debate plans entirely. Obama is normally not a good debater. For his incredible oratorical gift, he stutters slightly when he speaks extemporaneously and often avoids eye-contact in an uncomfortable way. Much has been made of his law-professor style (long-winded, academic, emphasis on nuance and subtlety) so I won't go into that in-depth here, but in short--he doesn't make very effective emotional appeals to the electorate in debate performances (or any time answering questions, to be frank).

McCain is a decent to decent plus debater. He's still uncomfortable and awkward, but he speaks in short, concise, and punchy statements and his words often resonate emotionally.

This week was supposed to be Obama's time to prepare--to let people coach him out of his U Chicago Law school ways and coach him into a main street populist tone. Everyone knows Obama is smart, and he shouldn't run from that. But he can't be a law professor tonight, he needs to be the smart guy on the stool next to you. Intelligent, knowledgeable, but also passionate about the cause. When answering "What should we do about Osama Bin Laden?" the answer should be "We should find him. And we should punish him. Severely." not "well first off, McCain and his fellow Republicans in congress and the White House dropped the ball on Osama while they launched war in Iraq etc etc etc. Oh, and we need to work through diplomatic channels to search for Osama."

In shuttling back and forth to Washington and meeting with Bush and talking with economic advisers, Obama missed crucial debate-prep time. If it all shows tonight and McCain wins, it could only reinforce the notion that Obama is a great orator but not a leader--an intellectual but not a commander-in-chief. If that's the case, McCain's 'campaign suspension', and hence 'debate prep suspension', might be the best move of his campaign.

(I wrote this entry really rushed in ten minutes before the debate to make sure I got it down on paper in time, so apologies if there are some loose ends.)

Gang of 11?

2008-09-16T21:34:00.001-07:00

I wrote this post three weeks ago but got caught up in a lot of other stuff and only noticed it as unpublished when I looked at my blogger dashboard this morning. I am posting it unedited now. Although the issues are a bit out-dated now (and with the Palin developments, it's buried deep in the news), I still think this is a strong line of attack for Obama to go on (and if it did get any traction it would certainly push the conversation back towards policy, which is beneficial for Obama). Right now the Obama camp has to be very worried that the final 50+ days will devolve into 'he said, she said' schoolyard fights. The more this election is about 'small things', the better it is for Republicans (both because they do it much better, and because they have no 'big things' to run on right now.

Following on my recent post for NPI, I think that the bipartisan energy plan sponsored by the 'Gang of 10' creates an enormous political opportunity for Obama. While I don't think the bill alone spells doomsday for McCain and Co as the author lamented, I think if Obama handles this correctly he can effectively destroy one of McCain's central (and only) meta campaign narratives before it even gets off the ground. The McCain camp is using the drilling issue in conjunction with painting Obama as an out of touch celebrity to create it's first campaign narrative--that McCain is a fighter who looks out for real Americans whereas Obama is self-centered and more interested in speaking to a crowd of 75,000 people than delivering politically (I think there is a tinge of calling Obama 'uppity' as well, but that's a whole other post). Also, notice that this is the exact same campaign theme Hilary used successfully to beat Obama down the stretch (particularly among the white working class voters in PA, OH, VA and MI that McCain thinks could swing it for him).

Obama should come out in strong support of the 'Gang of 10' energy compromise and then ask McCain to co-sponsor the legislation as a symbol of the bipartisanship that they both promise they will bring to Washington (and as immediate relief to the American voters after a summer of campaign squabbling over trivial issues). This is 'Country First' at its best (and also political theater at its best). If McCain accepts the offer, first and foremost, he's a follower. Also, he's pissed of his base (because the bill is generally more favorable to the current Dem ideology on energy, including massive alt energy money and oil profits tax) and it takes the idiotic "Drill baby Drill" soundbite off the table. Furthermore, McCain now looks like a 'compromiser'--which most intelligent human beings recognize is a positive personal characteristic--but in the bizarre Republican-dominated political climate has somehow become synonymous with 'weak' and 'pansy'. Most likely though, McCain would reject Obama's offer and now he is actively blocking legislation (bipartisan legislation at that!) to HELP the American people. Throw the 'Republican Reformer' out the window--'More of the hyper-partisan Bush' would be the necessary campaign slogan.

Obama should make sure that every single potential voter knows that he is pushing for legislation to help solve the energy crisis in the US. While this is a great governing maneuver that demonstrates his ability to compromise for change, it also creates an excellent political opportunity. The Obama camp should roll out an ad that labels Obama a 'fighter'--both fighting against 'big Oil' and fighting for 'hard-working Americans'. The Hillary campaign, and the McCain camp as well now, latched onto the 'fighter' label in a underhanded move to paint Obama as effete and by association, 'unamerican'. Obama's inability to deliver a knock-out blow to Hillary and his current failure to hold a lead against McCain only underscores this damaging narrative of Obama as a soft and timid compromiser, someone not fit to fight Osama or Russia, rising gas prices or unemployment.

The Democrats have nearly every issue won in this election (and with Pelosi's shift to the middle on drilling, the Repubs just lost their one big wedge). For this reason, I really see only one way that McCain wins this election: creating a compelling emotional appeal to the electorate. McCain must first paint himself as an American hero who has, and always will, fight to maintain our way of life (as opposed to Obama who wants you to stop driving your Ford F150, buy a Toyota, and teach your kids Spanish). Second, he'll paint Obama as weak, exotic, and by association, unamerican. Obama needs to do something catchy to move the conversation away from the emotional appeal and this bipartisan legislation gives him the opportunity.

Palin's Speech

2008-09-04T00:39:00.000-07:00

While potential VP Sarah Palin's speech is likely to receive high praise tomorrow, she made a few serious blunders that will most certainly come back to hurt the Republican ticket. Governor Palin is very charismatic and a strong orator and her lines were generally well-timed and punchy tonight. However, while her deliverance (personal performance) was strong, the speech itself wasn't what the Republicans needed (political performance--i.e. ability to deliver votes--wasn't strong).

Her speech missed in 4 key ways (in no particular order):

1) She spoke to the wrong audience.

As I see it, the GOP brand is so damaged right now that the Republicans can no longer rely on an insanely energized base (as W did) to win the election. Republicans have two paths to win this election:
1) Undermine Democratic support for Obama: Make a strong cultural pitch to the hearts of blue-collar voters in economically depressed areas (MI, PA, OH) that Obama is an out-of-touch intellectual elitist more interested in his own celebrity than helping 'average Americans'. Additionally, stir tensions between the Clinton and Obama factions and hope enough Hillary Dems stay home on the 4th. Fortunately for the Dems I think the potential effectiveness of the trivial cultural appeal was squashed by the emotionally effective DNC (although I still think it's Obama's largest barrier, it's no longer as large of a stumbling block). The 'Obama is not American, not a patriot, not 'one of us' narrative is no longer as politically salient. Additionally, while I'm still dubious of Bill and Hill, the calls for unity minimized the grief between the two major Democratic factions. Obama has made powerful strides to solidify the base, notably moving his support amongst Hillary-supporters from 70% to the low 80's.
2) Destroy Obama amongst independents. Although Palin is as right-wing as any of the VP's floated, the symbolic power of her narrative (both as women on the ticket and crusader against Republican corruption in Alaska) spelled a "Republicans for Reform" ticket. Essentially McCain could position his ticket as the same 'change' that Obama promises, with a lot less risk (and maybe not the same upside, but who cares, you KNOW he's not secretly a muslim).

Tonight, Governor Palin's speech indicated that the Republicans are choosing neither strategy. I don't buy that the McCain camp picked Palin because they thought that she--a staunchly pro-life, anti-fighting for equal pay, NRA candidate--would woo dejected Hillary voters. They picked her because she would fire up the conservative (see: evangelical) base and the symbolic 'woman on the ticket'/ Washington outsider/ surprise choice would remind voters of McCain's 'Maverick' credentials (I'll leave my full thoughts on why they picked her/grading the move to a whole other post). And fire up the Republican base is exactly what she did.

Her speech had a lot of red meat thrown right to the far-right crowd on the convention floor, but not much of the 'compassionate conservative' language to woo independents. What was the main takeaway of the speech? That community organizers suck and Obama is a tax-and-spend liberal? (The "McCain is American hero stuff doesn't even count at this point it's so ubiquitous at the RNC). Did she win ANY new votes with that rhetoric? The country is clearly looking for a change from the horrific policies of Bush--does attacking Obama as a traditional liberal democratic at a time when the generic Dem wins by 10 points really help you that much? There was a lot of talk of 'small town values' but no talk on how to help those struggling in small towns (and big cities) throughout America.

2) She misread the mood of the country: People are uneasy about the future of the American dream and the place of America in the world. Do people really want to hear Republicans rant about about media bias? There was a lot of negative red meat, but not too much positive red meat. I thought that the Dems may have overplayed the 'Death of the American Dream' card and created an (ironic) opening for the Republicans. The Repubs could have praised the resilience of the American people and claim that they are the 'fighters to restore the American dream' rather than the whining Democrats. Instead, the Republicans have decided to just whine louder and go more negative.

3) She shouldn't have attacked community organizing so strong. Obama has placed his time as a community organizer as central to his personal 'country first' narrative. Palin repeatedly attacked his time as a community organizer in a sarcastic, disparaging and unpleasant manner and it became personal at some point. I think the Dems are going to respond very strong to this one, because at the core community organizing is about serving those in need, giving a voice to the voiceless--Obama could have easily entered a lucrative career in finance or corporate law but chose to help others. Does Obama attack her run as the president of the PTA? (And is serving as a city councilperson really that much more impressive than community organizing?). Call Obama ambitious, that's fine (all politicians are--people recognize that). But my hunch is that most people from the center-right to the far-left think Obama is at heart a good-person, and so I don't think belittling his time as a community organizer is effective.

(Also, I can't help but think that her attacks on community organizing were racially coded. 'Community organizing' is the new 'inner-city'--racial code for programs/work that almost exclusively helps black people (and occasionally other minorities)).

4) Going so strongly negative opens herself up for attacks. The Obama camp waited until McCain got nasty to fight back and go negative on him, maintaining the moral high ground (or at least shielding themselves from the 'I thought he was about 'new politics'--but actually he's just like all other DC hacks' attack). They might have just done the same thing with Palin. While anything personal is still totally off-limits (like the "Why is she going to be VP? Doesn't she have a newborn to raise?" line that my mom and her friend's are bringing up), they can now hit on her political faults (and the media will take the gloves off now as well). Her 'Thanks, but No Thanks' to the Bridge-to-Nowhere comment--better believe you'll hear about that again as she ran on the "YES to the Bridge!" platform when campaigning for Governor. While both Palin and Obama are relative novices to the political arena, as a Senator, Obama is far, far, far more versed in the kind of conversations that dominate the campaign trail. Who knows if Palin knows the Sunni's from her Shiite's, or intricacies of HMOs from PPOs, and that's bound to come up at some point. Unless the Republicans guard her like they have in the last few days (no interviews, no questions from the press, nothing), it's highly likely that she make a serious gaffe that only reinforces any worries of readiness (and subsequently reminds everyone that McCain is old enough to be her dad--and great Grandpa for the newborn to come). Going this negative this early certainly will allow Biden to be more of a 'barracuda' than previously warranted.

Damn It Feels Good to be a Banker

2008-08-28T11:46:00.000-07:00

flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344">

Hilarious video my bro created. The academy called and said i'm up for Best Supporting Actor.

Hillary Clinton for VP

2008-08-20T23:19:00.000-07:00

The Case for Hillary (in no particular order, cause they're all damn important):

1) She delivers the core democratic base of women and working-class whites and unifies the party (Obama's got the black core on lock).
2) Because of that, she delivers Ohio and PA. In Ohio (if Obama wins Ohio the election is his), Obama recently fell behind McCain. While his numbers amongst independents are holding constant, McCain's moved into the lead because he has done a better job shoring up his base than Obama has--Obama only has support of 75% of the Democrats. Bump that up to 85% and Obama wins. 25% of Clinton supporters have still not moved to support Obama. While I think that number will naturally fall as they realize the stark contrast with McCain and the hurt feelings mend, putting Hillary on the ticket causes it to drop precipitously overnight. Opening up a 10-15 point lead in a matter of days could be insurmountable for McCain.
3) She shores up support in MI and makes FLA very competitive (she particularly shores up support in the Jewish community in FLA).
4) She delivers older voters.
5) She brings foreign policy experience to the table and shores up 'national security' issue.
6) "Were you better off during the Clinton years than during the Bush years?" I discussed this at length 2 posts ago so I won't go into it here again, but it's important to look at.
7) Abe Lincoln's 'Team of Rivals' phenomenon (note: one of Obama's favorite books). Choosing Clinton would signal that Obama is willing to put personal beef behind him to accomplish goals. While people like a bit of stubbornness in their President, Obama should be able to spin it as "I'm still totally in control, but I know what i need to do to win and to pass legislation"
8) She's a game changer. Something unexpected that the press will go crazy over. The news is no longer McCain attacking Obama and Obama's inability to defend himself. It's "Holy shit! Obama-Clinton--is this REALLY happening?"
9) She's the best attack dog there is.
10) Bill gets engaged in campaigning again and runs his populist mouthpiece (NAFTA be damned) wooing voters in the exact areas Barack struggles in (appalachian whites). Clinton is a competitor and with his wife on the ticket he'll be an asset.
11) The Clinton's will be pro-Obama, not trying to subtly undermine them. Enough shit trying to get her name on the ballot, or trying to stage protests, or Bill saying "No one is ready to be president". A lot of cynics have speculated that Hillary wants Obama to lose so that she can run in 2012 arguing "I told you all along he didn't have the cajones to beat McCain--elect me!" and while I don't think that's totally spot-on, I think there's a bit of jealousy/told-you-so going on.
12) She's a great debater and will wipe the floor clean with Romney/Pawlenty.
13) Hillary brings big time $$ (her high end donor base is still supposedly holding out on Obama).

Negatives:
1) Bill's shady $$$. I have no idea what's going to come out, but it's not going to be pretty and it'll distract the campaign for a week or two. As long as it can be contained as a week long story (full disclosure asap and apologies necessary from Bill) and not a two-month story, then it's alright.
2) Bill is unleashed on the campaign trail/in the white house. I really don't think this is that big of a negative--Bill struggled to find his voice in the Hillary campaign as he was jealous of Obama stealing his 'next JFK label', but by the end Bill was largely effective speaking in small towns. In the White House Obama needs to be able to say "It's my House, get out!" and then it's not a problem. I have a feeling BO can say as much.
3) It looks like Obama was too weak to ever put Hillary fully away (plays into the 'emasculating' argument). I think that Obama can spin his way out of this one though ("After months of dogged campaigning I came to respect her passion to serve the American people and realized that she's the kind of fighter I need to have on my team").
4) Hillary has already said a lot of negative things about BO and McCain will craft wonderful attack ads quoting her on it. For the record this was the argument that I made during the end of the primaries as to why she should shut up and move on. Every attack she made on BO was perfect fodder for future negative campaign ads against Obama and wrecked her chances of VP. Again, this is something that the candidates would have to spin their way out of but it's possible (highlight the minimal differences between their policies and the enormous differences between the BO-HRC shared ideas and the McCain ideas).
5) Obama NEEDS Hillary. My response: Who gives a fuck? He can 'need' her all the way to the White House and get the last laugh.
6) Half the country vehemently hates Hillary and so it's a wash for Obama. My counter-point: The people that hate her are Republicans who hate the Democrats regardless, or Democrats who like Barack enough to say "Whatever, Barack is driving the ship so i'm OK if Hill is tubing off the back". The only numbers i'd care to see are her approval/disapproval amongst independents? As i've said in previous posts: this election is about the base. The democratic brand is SO much stronger than the GOP that if the Dems can get their crowd to show up en masse, it should be fine.

While this list is long, it's not completely exhaustive and i'm sure I missed something in my passionate haste to get it all on paper (so to speak) before Obama and Co make a bad decision tomorrow afternoon and disappoint me. I was strongly for Obama throughout the primaries (see all my posts in the past) and I was vehemently against Clinton as a VP at the beginning of the general election campaign. I thought Hillary ran an unnecessarily negative campaign and throughout the long election cycle I have been very, very angry at her very many times. However, now that things are far more up in the air than they looked a month ago, HRC and Barack is the dream ticket.

Note: Sadly, I think there's only a 5% chance that they choose HRC. If they don't, I hope they have a lot of internal polling that shows that she won't actually help that much. If it's all personal reasons from Obama himself, i'd be horribly upset and very disappointed in the Mighty O.

VP Thoughts Discounting the Current Big 4

2008-08-20T20:52:00.001-07:00

Looking at it in general strategic terms, a VP should deliver something: deliver a state, a constituency, a skillset (i.e. national security) that the candidate doesn't have, or reinforce a message (i.e. Gore helping Clinton to deliver and solidify their message). Beyond all that I think it's important in this race that the VP be a great attack dog because the Dems really need to start hitting McCain and Obama is horrible at doing it (it goes against his core message AND he's not even good when he tries to do it). Finally (and probably least importantly) the VP needs to be able to stay on message given the Obama camp's obsession with controlling the story.

Mark Warner was probably my first choice for VP: he delivers the 'new leaders for America' message, delivers VA (winning with a state-level equivalent of Obama's 50-state strategy and leaving the Governor position with a phenomenal bipartisan record and an 80% approval rating in a red state!!) , delivers on the economy, and delivers rural/white/working class voters. The only thing he was missing was national security, but I think that might not be the end of the world--a national security VP makes that issue dominate the news cycle even more and underlines Obama's lack of experience. Finally, Warner and Obama are supposedly great friends and have great chemistry together--important to ease him into his role of governing the country.

Webb was probably my next choice: probably delivered VA, delivered white/rural/working class voters, delivered on national security, and is a fighter that would be a great attack dog. Unfortunately Warner wanted to be a senator/ stay with his family in VA, and Webb is an angry guy with a checkered past (my best guess for why he was knocked out of the vetting).

Looking at the Big 4, in reverse order of my approval:
4) Bayh--BORING. Doesn't deliver Indiana. Not totally sure what he brings to the table except for the fact that he's safe and from a red state. I think he was the favorite a few weeks ago, but given the bad turn of the campaign, it's swung away from him.
3) Kaine--While he drives the 'new leaders for America' message and I like his personal story (sings in a black church choir, plays harmonica with high school bands, fluent in spanish), he has too many negatives. 1) He's a political novice without an impressive non-political record (unlike Warner who has great business credentials). 2) He's got a reputation as a staunch partisan in VA. 3) He doesn't deliver VA as his approval ratings are hovering below 50%. 4) He doesn't have real experience on national security OR the economy. I am very scared that the Obama folks will buy into Kaine because they love 'reinforcing' the change message, but Obama-Kaine is just a bit too far from the comfort zone for the American people.
2) Sebelius--She doesn't deliver anything concrete. While I like the symbolic appeal of a liberal governor that's very popular in a red-state, I think she's only the choice if Obama has the election by a large margin regardless of VP and they're grooming for 2016. She doesn't deliver Kansas, she doesn't have serious economic or foreign policy experience AND she pisses off a lot of the Hillary supporters. People will argue she helps in the midwest with Ohio and Missouri--I say, so does Hillary (and in FLA, MI,PA...etc)

1) Biden: He's the favorite right now because he's a more heavyweight version of Bayh (in that he's still a pretty safe choice). He's got foreign policy experience, Washington governing experience, and he's a pretty solid attack dog. His negatives are that he can get off message pretty easily, he counters the 'new leaders for America'/change message (although I don't think that's the worst thing), and he doesn't deliver anything concrete electorally. The people at fivethirtyeight.com (probably my favorite political blog) did some interesting research on his sway with older voters (the most important demographic for Obama to win looking forward) and Biden was the best of the Big 4 there.
My biggest problem with Biden is that he's not a game changer. He's a safe pick that doesn't deliver all that much for Obama. This is a critical time for Obama to redirect his campaign, and I just don't think Biden spells a 180-degree turn. It seems like 'more of the same' to me.
Update: This article referencing all of Biden's previous disparaging statements about Obama may provide too much fodder for McCain attack ads. Biden is still the favorite, but I don't think he's as far ahead of the field as most think.

State of the Race

2008-08-19T23:31:00.000-07:00

NOTE: I wrote this post two days ago before the conversation on faith but never had the time to finish it. Everything after the first two paragraphs is new.

Outside of these general media issues that I discussed in previous posts, the conversation on faith could have been huge for the direction of the campaign. The Obama campaign has hit a low-point. After his whirlwind overseas tour, Obama has failed to create any positive news and rather has rode the McCain-led news cycles (on the defense about drilling, being a celebrity and now the Corsi crap). Although McCain has spent minimal time or money defining himself, he has turned the Obama campaign negative at a very damaging time. After a long partisan-heavy primary battle, the general electorate is finally starting to tune into this race. Although the electorate complains that they are over-saturated with Obama coverage, I think a lot of that is useless stories comparing him to Britney and Paris.

This campaign, like almost all others, is about narratives. Obama had the more compelling 'change' narrative and hence beat Hillary. McCain had the most compelling 'maverick' narrative (and therefore the only true shot at the White House) and hence beat the Republican field. While the McCain campaign initially struggled horribly to define its own meta narrative, it has seemed to land on two that work together--1) McCain is a war-hero who has always puts country first and will continue to fight for the American people, and 2) Obama is a celebrity who speaks wonderfully of change but has never (and will never) deliver on it. Obama should have used this conversation on faith to create a new narrative that he could ride for the remaining 3 months of the campaign. People understand that he's pushing the 'change' message--the Obama people were smart enough to completely own that word during the primary, when the electorate was looking exclusively for a change from the Bush years. Now that we are into the general election, the electorate is entirely different from the Primary electorate and I think that the Obama camp has yet to change the strategy accordingly.

Obama was so hard-pressed to avoid giving the Clintons any credit during the primary that his campaign missed the single most important line of attack for the general election--ask the voters one simple question: Were you better off during the Clinton years or during the Bush years? While it may not be the dramatic, earth-altering 'change' the campaign folks wanted from the beginning, the new race dynamics necessitate a new line of attack. He can still offer the change message to his base--he's still offering an enormous symbolic change as the first black candidate and a stark and practical change from the Bush years--but he can also ground that 'change' in a reference that everyone immediately recognizes and is comfortable with. Obama can talk for hours about statistics and tax rates, he can reference the $200B that McCain will give to big oil in tax breaks, but voters won't be able to place those numbers in a schema that's personally meaningful. If he directly references 'the Clinton years' everyone will immediately understand everything he's talking about. Additionally, referencing a known quantity such as the Clinton years will help to ameliorate voter's fears of a risky and exotic 'Obama America' (one line of attack that has been wildly successful for McCain). Obama has two goals in this convention: prove that he's 'one of us' (show that he's a 'real American') and prove that people will be better off financially in an Obama-led America than in McCain's America.

Conversation on Faith: Results

2008-08-17T22:38:00.000-07:00

I just got done watching a replay of the conversation on faith and here are my thoughts in unorganized bullet-form:

1) McCain blew Obama out of the water. It was a McCain event to begin with (audience on his side and preaching to the choir, so to speak), but I think Obama unperformed to be honest (he had a risk-free opportunity to gain ground and he missed it). It wasn't a total car crash for the Obama folks, but I think it was a slight negative for Obama and a real positive for McCain, which is exactly what Obama had to avoid.

2) Barack Obama is a deeply thoughtful man who approaches all issues from a variety of angles and hesitates to settle on one quick easy answer. While this may be a wonderful personality trait for a president (or at least a breath of fresh air after Bush), it's a horrible trait for a candidate. While many pundits argue that after Bush's "act first, think later, and never budge from an opinion" the American people are ready for a more intellectually nuanced President, I think Obama takes the Professorial thing a bit too far.

When asked "Why do you want to be President?" he started with a bizarrely halted story about his mom telling him to not be mean... not exactly the sound bite I was looking for. Later on he got to the right point: "I fear that the American Dream is slipping away" but I wish that he started like a good journalist with the important lead ("Bush and co ruined the American Dream") and then moved into the details/ story. I like that he incorporated a story from his past (especially one from his white mom) but it was awkward and did not grab the viewer's attention. When McCain answered the same question he started with "I want to inspire a generation of Americans to serve a cause greater than their own self-interest" and then went into his forward looking, optimism, hope, 'i put country first' stump speech. Although it's really the Obama camp that has the opportunity to promise a bright future, McCain has somehow managed to reverse it saying that the Obama camp only dwells on the negativity of the last 8 years whereas McCain can deliver sunshine from here on out. I really don't understand what foundation McCain thinks he has to make this argument, but until Obama and Co buckle-up and start to call the Republicans out on this BS, McCain's going to get away with it.

3) McCain is either incredibly well-coached or actually just phenomenal in town-hall type settings. Maybe this is only a product of me watching McCain giving big speeches and not his famous town-hall performances, but normally I find McCain uncomfortable, stilted and non-presidential. Tonight, in this more informal setting, I thought he performed excellently. He had clearly been told over and over again to relate everything to a personal annecdote, and he did it wonderfully. McCain's best bet to win this election is to make it an emotional appeal and personal connection with the electorate (the Dems have him beat on too wide a swatch of issues).

Past (failed) Democratic candidates have had the infuriating tendency to launch into 10-point plans whenever an issue arises and talk to the electorate as if they're reading from a powerpoint. McCain's reliance on annecdotes throughout tonight made his answers far more memorable and personal. While he didn't really answer the question about what faith means to him on a day-to-day basis, his poignant story about being POW i'll remember more than anything else from these debates and was straight out of a GOP advertisement (I could almost hear the music crescendoing in the background). It reinforced his faith and his time as a war hero.

4) That being said, the one answer he messed up on--'define rich'--he screwed up badly. It seems like the foundation for a phenomenal Obama ad attacking McCain for being out of touch himself (there's got to be a great line between McCain's 9 houses and $5M definition of rich). Combine that with the tax cuts for the rich and you have an attack ad that's both personal and political but hits with the same message--McCain won't help the middle class economically.

5) Rick Warren's questions weren't exactly what I expected (and not exactly balanced either--and I won't even go into the flap over the 'cone of silence'). I could be totally wrong, but I thought this event was sold to the Obama camp as an opportunity for an evangelical audience to get to know Barack (and accepted by the Obama campaign b/c they thought Obama can connect much better with this group than Kerry or Gore did). The questions that hurt Obama and have defined past evangelical political involvement--gay marriage, abortion--were certainly present but there was hardly anything from the 'new evangelical' playbook. Topics like getting out of the war in Iraq, tackling poverty in the US/Africa, working to solve the AIDS crisis, battling climate change are all supposed to be key to the 'new evangelicals' i've been reading about, but the issues were hardly present in the conversations. These pressing issues of great moral weight are part of the reason that pundits view evangelicals (particularly young evangelicals) as a great opportunity for Obama, but he gained no ground.

6) McCain did exactly what he had to--shore up support among christian conservatives and appeal to moderates based on his personal story.

I have more thoughts, but this post is already massive enough so i'll let them rest for now.

Conversation on Faith II

2008-08-16T22:43:00.000-07:00

(Disclaimer: I still have not watched the forum yet, so everything here is essentially still lead in conversation)

A few things I forgot to mention earlier that could minimize the importance of tonight's event:
1) It's in the summer.
2) It's on a Saturday night.
3) Phelps is going for his 8th gold and the Olympics is in full swing.

As for Obama's use of bible verse: He should not recite too much or do it too often as to avoid looking phony/ political/ a know-it-all/ a black preacher. He should relate it to a significant personal experience/point in his life to demonstrate that his personal journey (which is deeply intertwined with his political beliefs/vision) is genuinely connected to/driven by his faith.

Looking at the conversation in the most narrow sense (speaking to Evangelicans/Christians) tonight was an opening for Obama to speak to an audience he can't always reach (they're not reading Frank Rich/ watching the Colbert report quite as much). After countless votes dominated by abortion/ gay marriage, the tides seem to be ready for a change. Obama needed to push hard on the moral (christian) imperative to counter global warming to preserve the planet for the younger generation (PLEASE bring up your daughters!), fight poverty/hunger in the US and abroad (stories of organizing in Chicago?), and get out of Iraq. All three of those issues play well with his target audience of Evangelicals and Catholics. Also, notice that all of his discussions of faith should be tied to life examples--the more personal he makes this, the better. If Obama can make significant progress over Kerry/ Gore in either of those two electoral groups the election should be his.

My further thoughts on the more broad reason this night was so important to come...

Conversation on Faith Tonight

2008-08-16T16:15:00.000-07:00

I am rushing off to dinner right now so I can't put my full thoughts down on tonight's conversation between Obama, McCain and Rick Warren (megachurch leader and author of A Purpose Driven Life).

Later tonight I'll try to elaborate on why I think this conversation may be more important than any of the remaining three debates and why tonight's conversation gives Obama the ideal opportunity to create distance between himself and McCain (I know it's early but I really think if Obama knocks it out of the park tonight he makes McCain's job incredibly difficult, whereas now it's plausible to win).

In short, if I was in Obama's ear this past week on vacation i'd tell him to spend every minute that he's not getting 'Daddy Obama photo-ops' memorizing key passages of the bible, ready to recite 'chapter and verse'. Task number 1 on the campaign trail for Obama from here on out isn't to convince voters of the superiority of his 'New Energy' Plan or remind everyone that he was right on Iraq all along, or even to demonstrate that he brings a new dynamic and mindset to Washington--it's to convince voters that they can feel secure about an Obama America. America is a deeply religious country, it's time for Obama to convince voters that he's's 'one of us'.

Gang of 11?

2008-08-10T22:05:00.000-07:00

No Punditry Intended--New Political Media Start-Up

2008-08-08T19:04:00.000-07:00

I just started working on/for a new online media start-up that focuses on political commentary entitled No Punditry Intended. The company was started by a couple of my brother's friends and is essentially an op-ed aggregator like RealClearPolitics that comments on the style, evidence and insight of the various pundits. The founders of NPI have chosen the top 60 op-ed writers (top 60 being a subjective denomination) to aggregate and review.

This is a recent entry that I penned for the site:
Republican Energy Fumble

Since the bulk of my work for NPI is essentially the same that I do here--comment on the arguments of other political pundits--I will often post my NPI reviews here as well. Unfortunately I don't have a choice of op-ed writers to review for NPI and so I'll occasionally post pieces here that are not exactly in my wheelhouse or about the most 'important' topics.

Death of User-Generated Online Video?

2008-08-01T11:24:00.000-07:00

The folks over at NewTeeVee seem to think so.

This story is kind of depressing for people like myself who are interested in getting into the business of online video, but i'm not certain if I totally buy this 'RIP User-Generated Online Video' storyline. NewTeeVee's argument is that as Hollywood execs have realized (a couple years behind the curve) that the online video space provides a fantastic business opportunity for a variety of reasons (targeted audience, cheap distribution, direct advertising...), it's no longer the Wild Wild West of media. NTV folks say that online video is no longer dominated by user-driven content on YouTube (which I doubt is true if you look at viewing rates) but rather by corporate sites like Hulu and CBS that thanks to the growth of broadband internet simply pump their network shows on the (super) small screen.

My first counter point is that mainstream sources are not simply regurgitating their existing products (and in some cases, like with Gossip Girls, they're actually blocking it online). Rather, networks are packaging their existing content with additional features, almost like DVD-extra releases, that are ultimately provide more entertainment for the consumer (and selected entertainment). Beyond that though, some mainstream sources are developing original content for an online-exclusive market, such as Rosario Dawson's new first-person online webisode, that are entirely unlike what is shown on network TV. The success of websites like FunnyOrDie does not mean that Hollywood has taken over online video, it shows that online video can serve as a creative outlet for someone like Will Ferrell to experiment and interact with fans in a way never before possible. It's still 'user driven' (Ferrell is coming up with the ideas and shooting with low budgets relative to a full production), it's just the 'user' is way more more funny and has better looking/ more funny friends as well.

More importantly for people like myself, the demands of user-generated online content have changed. The key is creativity--for something user-generatedd to work online it has to be distinct from TV. TV will always win when it comes to quality (both acting and filming) but online video doesn't have the same corporate execs demanding immediate success and tangible profits--therefore there is more room for creative risks (and for flops as well). While the new competetive landscape may make it harder to create the next LonelyGirl, it will force filmmakers to push the envelope and be more creative. TV works already, it'd be great to see online video as something new entirely.

Blogginheads--Legalizing Drugs

2008-07-24T10:28:00.001-07:00

Interesting video that follows up on a previous post here about the 'war on drugs'. I don't wholly agree with these talking heads but I think that there needs to be a critical re-evaluation of our drug policy focused on effect and not statistics (i.e. how many lives are we positively changing by enforcing drug laws vs. how many 'criminals' are we putting behind bars). The guy on the left makes a strong point: 4 out of 10 drug arrests are for posession of marijuana, don't our cops have some more serious violent crimes to deal with?

By the way, BloggingHeads.TV (a lot of the content has been purchased and featured on NYT) is a pretty cool online video site that along with BigThink points to a wonderful future of intelligent online video rather than simply blooper clips and pet/ baby videos (a discussion I brought up briefly when posting my own video).

"Obamacons"

2008-06-26T05:55:00.000-07:00

The growth of "Obamacons", the campaign's semi-clever term for Republican/Conservative Obama supports (following in a long line of Obam+____ nicknames), is supposedly one of the storylines for this presidential season. As the argument goes, there are a significant number of former Republicans fed up with Bush's handling of Iraq, the economy and everything else under the sun that are going to cross the aisle to vote for Obama (Reagan Democrats in reverse).

As much as it was fun to see all of the Republicans crossing the aisle in the primary and voting for Obama (well, at least before Limbaugh got his hands on the race and Republicans heavily tilted the election in Clinton's favor as a Dem spoiler late in the primary), I personally don't buy the massive ''Obamacon' for the general election. McCain is enough of a centrist Republican toeing the party line on social issues that he's unlikely to lose significant center-leaning Republicans (recent polling even put McCain up 36-28 among Independents, a group Obama's message resonated with during the primary). Furthermore, I find it highly unlikely that the Christian Right will show up for Obama, a candidate who is among other things painful for the Christian Right, pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. All this being said, Obama still leads by a significant margin and is the prohibitive favorite to win in November (I put the odds at 75-25).

Why? It's all about the base.

As Bush proved in 2000 and 2004, elections are not all about the 'median voter strategy' (theory that candidates must move towards the middle to win independents because each Independent vote is worth double--one for you and one away from your opponent). Bush won by appealing to his base and expanding his target audience through surgical micro-targeting and innovative get-out-the-vote strategies that the Democrats couldn't compete with (Rove was a campaign genius--let's hand that to him). Unfortunately for the Republicans (hooray for us), the tide is turning. Obama's historic appeal as the first black and first post-Vietnam cultural politics candidate dramatically expands the Democratic base in terms of voter turnout (600,000 unregistered black voters in GA caused the Obama camp to put the state 'in play' even though Bush won by more than 20%). Furthermore, Obama's ability to speak to the youth generation (he really is the first candidate that relates to me and not solely to my parents) gives him an enormous grassroots advantage--college students and young adults generally don't have the same pressure to provide for a family and have the young spirit to canvass and walk door to door registering voters. Beyond those two demographics, Bush's Presidential mismanagement and the seemingly precarious state of the US (rising gas prices, slumping economy, bad international image) galvanizes a whole other group of voters to finally get involved.

On the Republican side, the 'GOP Brand' couldn't be weaker and McCain doesn't exactly 'excite' the Republican Right (it's 'he's better than Obama' at absolute best, 'not worth showing up to the polls' at worst). McCain's Veepstakes is a chance for McCain to either move middle and present a bipartisan 'American hero' package challenging Obama among independents and Clinton Dems who are scared of Obama's inexperience, or move right and cede the middle. Happily, I think McCain loses either way (Note: A friend brought up the scary spector of a McCain-Bloomberg ticket which would neutralize Obama's fundraising advantage almost immediately).

Long story short, although a few high level defections would be nice (i'm looking at you Hegel and Powell), Obama doesn't really need the 'Obamacons'--the base is strong and growing and that should be more than McCain can handle.

Barack's DNC Address

2008-06-24T05:43:00.000-07:00

Worthwhile article to read about Barack's speaking and writing abilities.

I know that it seems like everyone has already fallen over themselves praising Obama for his intellect and charisma, but this article goes a bit deeper into it and has a few choice parts. First, Obama wrote his 2004 DNC keynote and his incredible "A More Perfect Union" by himself (as well as both of his bestselling books). Interesting to note that Obama's speech on race was the one speech he wouldn't let his whiz-kid 26-year old speechwriter pen on his behalf (also, that speech had the least soaring plattitudes and the deepest intellectual thought of all of his speeches this electoral season). Speaking of his head speechwriter, the 26 year old kid compared his job as being 'the batting coach for Ted Williams'--a beautifully clever way to heap praise on his boss.

The author concludes the piece by arguing that this has to be Obama's greatest speech ever. In a season with a multitude of goose-bump inducing speeches Obama must worry about coming off as more style than substance--the all-illusive 'average' voter that everyone says he can't win could get lost somewhere betweeen his MLK-like allusions to the countries' geographic and ethnic diversity and his own powerful 'I am America' narrative.

In many ways Obama has written (and talked) himself into this position. From his powerfully introspective first book to his incredible speeches he has never shied away from the grand stage and I can't imagine him doing it now. Conventions are by definition over-the top affairs, with requisite standing ovations even for hokey punchlines, cascading balloons and confetti and an overwhelming 'preaching to the choir' sentiment. Obama's DNC address will come 40 years to the day of MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech--there should be no doubt that Obama's going to blow the roof off the building. The beauty of the convention is that all the adulation and celebration will be natural rather than forced (read: RNC in MN) and that alone will mark the dawn of a new day in American politics, exactly what Obama is trying to convince us of. Through Obama's soaring rhetoric he has repositioned American politics as a vehicle for positive change and a reason to hope after nearly a decade of cynicism, scandal and mistrust. Sometimes style is substance.

Update

2008-05-21T11:24:00.000-07:00

Looks like Tim Egan has been reading my blog.

Frank Rich Bringing Good News

2008-05-18T10:52:00.000-07:00

Here's a feel-good article about the Dems' chances in the general election. For all the doom and gloom that's being written about Obama's chances, Rich has been consistently optimistic (and intelligent), citing the incredibly low approval ratings of the Republicans in power. Regardless of his struggles with 'working class Americans' and McCain's supposedly "maverick" status, how does a democratic with far more money and more grassroots support lose an election in which he wins on nearly every single issue?

Also, another thing that hasn't been discussed is the importance of the conventions to provide a boost to the campaign. Watching McCain make his 'visionary' speech made me giddy about the GOP convention. To this end...here's a particularly nice passage (or two) from the Rich piece:

For all the fears of a Democratic civil war, the planets may be aligning for a truce, and possibly a celebration. As fate has it, the nominee’s acceptance speech is scheduled for the night of Aug. 28, exactly 45 years after the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. electrified the nation with “I Have a Dream.”

The next day brings another anniversary: Mr. McCain turns 72. And then, on Sept. 1, comes the virtually all-white G.O.P. vaudeville in Minneapolis-St. Paul. You’ll be pleased to know the show will go on despite the fact that the convention manager, chosen by the McCain campaign, had to resign last weekend after being exposed as the chief executive of a lobbying and consulting firm hired by the military junta in Myanmar.

The conventioneers will arrive via the airport whose men’s room was immortalized by a Republican senator still serving the good people of Idaho. This will be a most picturesque backdrop to the party’s eternal platform battles over family values, from same-sex marriage to abortion.

For good measure, antiwar demonstrators from within the G.O.P. — Ron Paul devotees — could provide at least a smidgen of the 1968-style disruptions the Democrats may avoid

Obama's speech on the 45th anniversary of "I have a dream"--the goosebumps are already forming.

"Hard working Americans"

2008-05-16T12:37:00.000-07:00

Here's a good article from the NYT decrying Obama's 'failure' to win the 'hardworking (white) Americans'. Granted the returns in West Virginia, Penn, NC and Ohio were not particularly supportive of Obama's 'post-racial' theme, but it does not mean that he cannot garner any white support in the general election.

Obama's failures among white voters have been among white rural voters. Not all of the white people in America live in rural appalachian towns. The white people that have been voting in the last few primaries are some of the least well-educated white people in the country. This is not a stepping stone to launch into some elitist "rural people are racist hicks" argument. Rather, I want to remind everyone how well Obama did in previous 'white' states. When Obama cleans up in Oregon (with 2% black population) let's not call Oregon 'atypical' with all 'elitist, arugula eating, prius driving, latte drinking white people' but rather recognize it as one of the fastest growing states in the country. Obama can win this election losing Ohio and West Virginia but picking up Colorado and Virginia (states he's polling well in right now).

Another issue that hasn't been discussed nearly enough is that Obama is currently running against another Democrat with nearly identical policy platforms. Voters are deciding SOLELY on personal characteristics and cultural reasons. One thing the news media does far too often is characterize lower-class voters as swayed by personality more than policy while well-educated people vote 'smartly' based on policy issues. In fact, a recent political science study (wish I had the link to it) showed that lower-class voters are far more likely to vote based on policy preferences while the upper-class (and well-educated people) votes based on candidates appeal/characteristics. This actually makes total sense--who needs government programs/assistance more? When the choice is between tax cuts for the rich/corporations and tax cuts for the middle class/social welfare state, I think these 'racist' voters will vote for their policy preference, not the color of skin of the candidate.

Race+Roland Fryer+The Economist

2008-05-13T00:36:00.001-07:00

Here's an interesting article from the Economist on Race in America. There is a lot of writing in the piece about the much heralded young Harvard economist Roland Fryer. I have actually worked this year at his Harvard 'think tank', the American Inequality Lab. While I wish I could say that I was busy crunching hard data and developing statistical models, much of my work was far more mundane. Regardless, cool stuff to be around and nice to see the work getting some public press.

In the interest of fairness...

2008-05-12T11:48:00.001-07:00

Here's a counter argument someone passed along to me. I don't think it's really fair to expect a 2 page NYT op-ed to cover the same ground (in the same detail) as a 10-15 page research article, but there are some decent points in here. I don't think anyone argues that there are not differing rates of crimes committed. The argument is rather that the justice system does a lot of harm to inner-cities (jailing of Marijuana-related offenders is one thing the counter-argument does not address) and needs reform.

Structural Racism

2008-05-10T11:45:00.000-07:00

There seems to be a growing sentiment in America that structural racial discrimination/oppression no longer exists (which dangerously--and wrongly--implies that problems in the black communities are primarily fault of internal problems). I won't waste hours here refuting this point, but I thought this article by the ed-board at the NYT does an excellent job explaining the racial inequity of our justice system.

While the disparity in punishment for crack and powder-cocaine related offenses is slightly better known (and often brought up as the go-to example for racism in the justice system) the problem extends much deeper than this. It seems like Reagan's "War on Drugs" was really a "War on (Black) Drug Users" that has neither stifled the flow of drugs into the US nor minimized drug usage throughout America (in both black and white communities). Rather the subsequent high rates of incarceration of black men created a generation of reformed 'criminals' that now have a stained resume and therefore struggle to find reputable work (Side note--do you think leaving jail with a tainted resume and a new network of criminal friends/contact makes drug offenders more or less likely to 'rehabilitate' and re-enter mainstream society than if they had never gone to prison in the first place?). Despite being lauded by Republicans as the greatest think since Honest Abe, Reagan did incredible damage to black communities and race relations more generally with his "War on Drugs", not-so-subtle exploitation of the 'welfare queen' and rejection of 'programs that disproportionately benefit black urban communities' as a way to scare up votes. With the Republicans desperately searching for their next Reagan, I almost want to hand over the 'silent majority'.

Let's Make A Change

2008-05-03T12:23:00.001-07:00

As my final project for a class on American Protest Literature along with a couple of my classmates I made a video protesting political apathy amongst our generation. Given the upcoming election this is an incredibly important and timely issue. The issues that our next president will deal with (Health Care, Iraq war, multiple Supreme Court vacancies) will effect our generation for decades to come. There has never been a more important election to make the youth voice heard.

The video says most all of what I would otherwise write here so i'll let the video speak for itself.

Additionally, part of this process is trying to test whether YouTube can be used as an effective tool/site for social protest or whether the viral video craze is relegated to short blooper films and funny skits/music videos. Can the' YouTube video' replace pamphlets/speeches/essays/books used by social protesters in generations past? Is it possible to leverage the unreal viral potential of YouTube for social good, to create an online forum for intelligent discussion and civic action? To this end my classmates and I are trying to generate some online buzz for this video. We want the message of political participation to reach as many people as possible so to this end, if you would please forward the video/message along to as many people as possible it would be great. Additionally, I've created another blog, ChangeYouthVoting.blogspot.com, to monitor this project and help people register/vote.

Here is the link if you would like to visit the YouTube page to comment/rate/favorite the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ7-igtWbzw

Thanks a ton.

Ayo Technology

2008-04-09T19:40:00.000-07:00

Often I find myself entirely overwhelmed by the pace of technological advances. The internet has created an enormous market opportunity for entrepreneurs and while I have absolutely no scientific study to back this, I'd bet decent money that this past decade has seen more innovation than any other. Browsing my various 'new media' blogs everyday I am nauseauted by the amount of 'social networking' and 'online video/media' start-ups that are constantly popping up. At some point, I hope these social-venture innovators will recognize that Facebook owns the game and no one wants to join a specific social networking community to empathize over the trials and tribulations of some insignificant personality trait or side-hobby (although I do think this is a pretty awesome concept). It seems like everyone has caught the ad-supported business model buzz and the days of bricks-and-mortar start-ups are dead.

It's for this reason that any time someone comes along with a new product, be it by beloved Magic Shell or even horrific misses like Pepsi Blue , i'm very intrigued. This movie below is something that has got me very, very excited. The technology is already here. The possibilities are endless (imagine video games, sports events, music videos) and it could genuinely revolutionize the way we spend our worthless hours (i.e. TV, Movies, Videogames).

Note: The video is kind of boring, I know. Fast forward to about 3:00 if you want to skip his explanation of how it works.

Change to the Blogos

2008-04-02T22:46:00.000-07:00

Look right (like literally, look to the right of your screen)--I have added a semi-useful feature that embeds some of my most recent google "shares" straight to my blog (these are news pieces/blog posts that I chose to 'share' with the rest of the Google Reader community). Over the past month or so I have become a bit of a news junkie and while previously my shares were only available to fellow Google Reader users, i've decided to share them with the rest of the community as well. I figured the average Google Reader user (Google Reader is an RSS feed aggregator--essentially it collects all of my favorite blogs, news sources and more in one place so I don't have to run errands all over the world wide web) is already reading far too much news and so it makes more sense for me to share it this way w/ the general public. (Note: After reading about Apple's iPhone production shortage from literally 6 different sources today I was hit with the depressing reality that I waste far too much time reading news nowadays. While it's a good thing to be informed, it's a slippery slope given the overwhelming amount of free content available. Part of me thinks i've only become so involved b/c Facebook was slowly losing its luster but my internet/time-wasting addiction to the net demanded a new, constantly changing/ updating fix).

Biggest downside to this new Blogos addition: most of my posts are a result of musings from reading these various articles so some things may be a bit redundant. Either way, Web 2.0 (and according to many of my friends, my entire academic career) is all about creative aggregating, so i'll go with it for now. Enjoy...

Frank Rich on the Bosnia Scandal

2008-03-30T20:05:00.000-07:00

This piece by NYT Op-Ed columnist Frank Rich takes the issue a bit too far and spends a few more words on the subject than necessary, but it's still worth scanning through (what a lukewarm suggestion on my part--seriously, read it--it has a lot of necessary facts to know). Unlike Rich asserts, I don't think the Bosnia scandal is a larger issue than the Wright controversy. That being said, given that Hillary is running on the basis of her 'experience' and that this Bosnia discussion was included in her stump speech this is a serious problem. Basically Rich thinks that Obama should be the nominee, and that the race is essentially over now. If the Bosnia flap is magnified adequately (and the Wright controversy is simultaneously pushed behind us) then all Hillary news is negative, her upside (experience in a battle vs. McCain) diminishes, and it becomes clear to everyone that Obama's the one.

(Side note: Rich totally missed the point on the Iraq war being the main issue of 2008 election. This is a subject for a longer post/discussion, but the Democrats win if they make the election a referendum on 1) the economy and 2) the purpose/place of politics in America. If it becomes a debate on Iraq, McCain has a greater chance of winning b/c 1) Iraq=national security in many people's minds, 2) Obama will highlight his speech against the war and then McCain, American war hero and 30 year vet, will remind everyone that Obama made that speech as a state senator (highlighting his lack of experience on foreign policy) 3) Anti-war always becomes anti-patriotic somehow and finally 4) will the American people really vote to lose a war? I just don't see that happening. Please Dems--focus on the economy and the significance of an Obama presidency rather than the anti-Iraq stance--it doomed Kerry, don't let it doom Mighty Mighty O.)