Former (current?) Hillary Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson has a new blog.
He is using it as an unabashed platform for promoting his music likes. (As opposed to the more abashed me).
BTW, Howard, if you like Grizzly Bear, check out this Girl Talk remix. And, you also have a kindred blogger spirit in the venture capitalist Fred Wilson.
David Kralick works for Newt Gingrich in Silicon Valley and attracts strange artificial lighting wherever he goes. (photo by Chistina Koci Hernandez for The Washington Post)
The Post has a piece today about Newt Gingrich's emissary to Silicon Valley. It's written by a Bay Area native with an engaging, evocative style and doesn't spare many clichés about life and work between San Jose and South of Market. (Neither apparently does the Post's photo editors. See above).
The lede:
Here, he's from another planet. Here in Silicon Valley, David Kralik is, let's face it, some strange import. That's why he's attracting such buzz one recent afternoon inside Buck's, the legendary eatery, while lunching on a pulled-pork sandwich.
Jamis MacNiven, Buck's owner, plops himself down and blurts out: "So you're the guy that works for Newt the Snoot!"
Yep, that's Kralik. A lifelong Republican in the land of liberal Democrats. Who relocated from uptight, Brooks Brothers Washington. And works for Newt Gingrich.
Bucks really needs to be taken out of the Let's Go Silicon Valley Guide for Media. And, OMG a Republican in Silicon Valley! Get me my binoculars, ma!
But, there are good amounts of interesting anecdotes in the piece -- especially centered around how to apply tech to solve big government problems....
...Says Peter Leyden, the former editor of Wired magazine who heads the New Politics Institute, a think tank focusing on technology's impact on Washington: "There's an emerging sense that both worlds need each other. Think of it this way: The scale of the problems that the world faces -- globalization, global warming, global terrorism -- can't be solved without these two hubs cooperating with each other."
ad_icon
Kralik knows all of this full well. On a recent six-hour flight from Washington to the Valley, he drafted a three-column chart. "The world that works." "The world that fails." "Making government from a world that fails to a world that works."
Kralik puts the U.S. Census Bureau in the world-that-fails column. After spending more than $150 million on handheld computers to count everyone in the country, the Census Bureau announced a few weeks ago that it will scrap that program and hire 600,000 temporary workers and go back to the same way that it's counted people since 1790: with paper and pen.
"You've got to be kidding me, right?" says an incredulous Kralik. "Why can't we get together the brightest minds at Google, at Apple, at whatever companies here in the Valley, and figure out a more high-tech way of counting our citizens?"
v.
Amy Schatz of the WSJ is the first out of the gate with a Obama v. McCain-for-the-hearts-and-wallets-of-Silicon-Valley story. (Previous pieces hedged with other candidates).
Few presidential candidates have had as much experience dealing with technology and telecommunications issues as Sen. McCain, who for years chaired a Senate committee that deals with them. But he rarely brings tech issues up on the campaign trail and hasn't released many significant policy proposals about them yet.
By contrast, his likely rival, Sen. Obama of Illinois, presented a detailed technology agenda in November that addressed many of the industries' hot-button issues -- including support for building faster broadband networks and keeping Internet traffic unfettered. He has subsequently raised significantly more Silicon Valley cash than Sen. McCain.
A running total of campaign donations by Silicon Valley zip codes maintained by TechNet, an association made up of 150 high-tech chief executive officers, finds that by March 31, Sen. Obama had raised $5 million, compared with almost $800,000 for Mr. McCain.
The piece notes that the discrepancy in funding between the two candidates can be partially attributed to the fact that tech issues aside, there just happens to be a lot more people ideologically attuned to Obama in the Bay Area. Very true, but a well-done June Atlantic Monthly piece also shows how Obama quietly used the Valley as a fundraising launching pad for his campaign early in the process...
...But more than any policy, the idea of Obama and the world he speaks for seemed to excite something deep within the limbic system of the Valley brain that manifested itself through the early and continuing financial support that was crucial to launching Obama’s campaign. Getting behind Obama, especially for those who did so early, appealed to their self-image as discerning seers.
Discerning seering aside, the WSJ does pick up on one policy note that will likely be exploited by McCain with industry-types in the coming months (and with good reason): Free trade. As the primary election trudged on, Obama's pragmatist instincts were smothered by an apparent need to score populist political points on the issue. McCain has had no need for nuance on the need for free trade in a global economy.
BTW, this week marks the year anniversary of McCain's keynote interview at the All Things D conference (my picture below). I remember a general feeling among the many tech execs in the audience of "it's kind of embarrassing that this guy has zero chance to get the nomination and he's speaking here, but, hey, he's a war hero, a senator, and (John) Chambers supports him, so I guess I will listen."
Even more tellingly, was the post-speech handshake tour among the dining attendees. Cisco's Chambers diligently introduced the Senator to different tables of folks. It was all very polite and people were genuinely interested in meeting and talking to McCain, but there was no rush of people to do so. Folks stood back and if McCain made it to their table, than great, if not, than, hey, look over there... what is Chad Hurley wearing?
It would be different scene altogether if McCain was speaking this year (not to mention Obama). Just shows how vaunted visionaries can miss half of the future even when it has walked in the room and extended its hand.
All the Obama talk here might get you to suspect that we, too, have a crush on the Illinois Senator. But, whether this is true or not isn't the issue. It's the fact that he tends to spur the most innovative (and surprising) Internet grassroots efforts in his support -- even more than geek/freak darling Ron Paul.
Somewhat stunningly, the latest example comes from my family dinner table.
To my left is my 26-year-old arch-liberal little brother. To my right is my 69-year-old, life-long Republican father.
Together, brother and dad found agreement around their support of Obama and created this DIY campaign ad...
Despite the Silicon Valley circular hype machine about Twitter for the last year, I have somehow managed to avoid getting sucked into the micro-micro blogging service. I do have a Twitter "handle" (seangarrettnow), but haven't done much with it (yet).
But, I do love one thing about Twitter: It's ability to serve as an insta-focus group. You can gauge reactions to any piece of reasonably big news (or anything else) via a third-party search service called "Tweet Scan". I wanted to see what the chattering classes thought of the (historic?) Obama speech on race today right as it ended, so I searched "Obama" and "speech" and dozens of dozens of instant reactions appeared. Here's the top several from a screen shot:
Despite the urgings of fanboys around the world, Larry Lessig is not running for Congress.
If you somehow haven't been paying attention, the Stanford professor, copyright reform advocate and, more recently, an outspoken voice to rid Congress of corruption, pondered trying to fill the Bay Area congressional seat of the late Tom Lantos. Here's a WSJ story if you need a primer.
The many hundreds of people who wanted Lessig to run and contributed to yet-to-be announced campaign seemed to forget one critical point. He would lose. And, not only lose, but lose big and in an embarrassing way. The loss would be pointed at by snickering critics who would say that if Larry Lessig can't win in one of most densely populated tech geek populations in the country than what does that mean?
Why would he lose so bad? Well, besides only having a month to prepare and campaign in the Democratic primary, there was the small matter of who he would face as an opponent.
The leading contender is a state senator named Jackie Speier. After serving for 25 years, she is Democratic royalty in the state. As a staffer to Rep Leo Ryan, she was shot on the tarmac of Jonestown just prior to the infamous massacre. The congressman and others died from their wounds. Speier was one of the survivors.
Since then, while managing other personal setbacks including the death of her husband, Speier has been a force in local and state politics and has the endorsements of everyone and their brother.
Lessig is right to take up his battle from the outside for now. Yes, it would have been thrilling to watch him on the inside. But, it was never going to happen -- no matter what the blog echo chamber could convince themselves of.
The only thing more annoying than suggesting that Web tools are a panacea for democracy and the election process may be the smug claims that they have little to no effect.
Declan "Iconoclast" McCullagh wrote after Super Tuesday that:
It must have come as a surprise to the boisterous Barack Obama supporters who were flagging down commuters at light rail stations south of San Francisco after work on Tuesday, but Hillary Clinton won far more votes in Silicon Valley than did her rival from Illinois....
....So why did Obama--who's popular online and has been touted as a more tech-savvy candidate--lose the nation's high-tech heartland by an embarrassing 16-point margin?...
...clicks in online polls and credit card numbers typed into a Web form by political enthusiasts (do not) necessarily translate into votes.... Traditional politicking and on-the-ground organization still count for more, and that's one area where the Clinton machine excels.
As I wrote last month, it worked for the Clintons in New Hampshire, and it worked again even in Silicon Valley, one of the most tech-savvy places in the world. It shows once again that it's so much easier to click a mouse button (or type in a credit card number, or post to a discussion forum) than it is to register to vote and then actually do it.
Let's first take a magical trip to a fantasy land where everyone in Silicon Valley is tech savvy and works for an Internet company.
You with me?
"Credit card numbers typed into Web forms" doesn't, of course, guarantee you anything. But, ask any candidate whether they would rather have more money or less, and you get my point. I think it's been well documented that Obama has gained support as he has gained resources and vice versa. Not exactly a deep insight.
And, as the readily available data from this primary season demonstrates, this isn't a zero-sum game. On the Democratic side, especially, there has been a surge in turnout that been split by all candidates. It could be argued that the traditional base has been motivated by Hallmark TV informercials and the "Clinton Machine" to vote to Hillary and the Obama side has used new media to inspire record numbers of youth voters, well-educated affluents and independents to vote for him. After all, in a recent 463/Zogby/Cong. Internet Caucus survey of voters, we found that 48 percent of those polled cited the Internet as the primary source of their knowledge of the presidential candidates. Only 31 percent and 13 percent cited television and radio, respectively. as the primary source. Nearly 67 percent of 18-29 year-olds cited the Internet as their primary source.
But, I am not even going to make that argument. It's a fractured media world. People will get their insights on candidates from many different places. Old people. Young People. Hispanics. Eskimos. Even all those Internet employees who somehow are also moonlighting as school teachers, bus drivers and welders in Silicon Valley.
P.S. Now that they ride is over, feel free to peek at the census figures from Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties.
IDG's Grant Gross succinctly reviews the tech policy positions (or lack thereof) of the major presidential candidates.
CNET notes that the MTV-MySpace forum with candidates lacked any mention of tech related issues.
Yet, in the LA Times endorsement of Obama, his policy position on tech policy is mentioned as an asset.
What has been the single most effective new media tool this campaign season?
Twitters from campaigns? A YouTube gotcha ad? Facebook groups? Campaign theme-song ringtones? Google "bombs"? MySpace forums? Specially designed campaign social networks? Widget heavy Web sites?
No, no, no, no and so on....
My suspicion is that it has been an old-fashioned email that lists outlandish and patently false charges which claim that Barack Obama is a Muslim, and much worse, insinuates that he is somehow a radical Islamic Manchurian Candidate.
The power of this communication is that despite a decade of moronic chain emails that have universally been deemed false, there is still a large segment of American society that believes something just because they read it and it came from a friend. There is a reason why the "Bill Gates will pay you to forward this" email or the the email tax meme have lasted as long as they have. I have highly educated relatives who still earnestly send me this stuff. Somehow, the same folks who look over a $21 restaurant bill for five minutes have never gotten appropriately skeptical about Big Claims whizzing around the 'Net. They believe things first and ask questions never.
I first became familiar with the Obama email because I have two different sets of relatives who sent my wife and dozens of family and friends the note around Thanksgiving. These are not hateful racists and/or bigots. But, they are sadly predisposed to believing that a man with the middle name of Hussein couldn't possibly worship in their church. Ross Perot believed it. I would hazard to guess that most everyone reading this post knows someone who has received the mail. Know anyone who watches Fox News?...
After I did research on it, I was surprised that there hadn't been more written on the real impact of the email and wondered what the Obama strategy was to counter it. Of course, soon after when a Clinton county chair in Iowa was caught sending the email, more attention was paid to it. More recently, when the email was sent out to thousands on a military network, it raised official eyebrows and reprimands.
But, apparently, the most significant front on chain mail turf battle has been with the Jewish community -- an obviously highly contested segment of the population in the primary. One Jewish pub said last week that "Obama staffers have struggled to contain the damage from numerous emails circulated among Jewish leaders that falsely claim Obama is a Muslim."
So much so, that Obama, himself, took the time to address it just before he took the stage with Senator Kennedy last week at American University. In a call with Jewish media, he said:
"There has been a constant and virulent scare campaign via the Internet that has particularly targeted the Jewish community," he said, calling that focus "interesting."
"It states that I’m a Muslim, that I was sworn into my Senate office on the Koran, and that I do not pledge allegiance. It is very important for everybody to know that it is fake. I never practiced Islam. I was raised by my secular mother. I have been a member of the Christian religion and an active Christian. I was sworn in with my hand on my family Bible and have said the Pledge of Allegiance since I was 3 years old."
The Obama campaign also fought fire with fire and unleashed a January email, Web, you name it, campaign against the smears. Here's Sarah Lai Striland's Wired report on the response. And, here is the Obama campaign "fact page" with all flavors of third-party support.
Perhaps most importantly, when I searched Google for "Obama Muslim" I got this paid ad from the campaign as the top result...
Too little, too late?
I have no idea if Obama will win. And, I suspect that if he did, I would have a good deal of trouble with many of his policies. However, you can't question how his method and approach to this campaign have rallied and excited millions of people who are sick and tired of the environment of hate, mistrust and polarization that allows a patently false and damaging email like the Obama-is-Muslim one to more than flourish. The irony is painful.
People predicted that this would be the year of the "YouTube candidate" and inventive videos like the "We are the World"-esque pro-Obama one below (that is blowing up the Internet today) would have the predominate new media impact. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad that a chain-email that could be debunked with 30-seconds of research is the Internet's top contribution to the campaign thus far.
President Tron
As, we saw in a poll, voters at least want their next president to be as conversant in the Internet as they are. The kickoff panel at yesterday's Congressional Internet Caucus conference (The State of the Net) provided an opportunity for some of the presidential campaigns to show their geek creds. The panel focused on how the next administration should manage and prioritize technology policy. It featured representatives (some ostensible, some actual) representatives of the Clinton, McCain, Obama and Giuliani (RIP) campaigns. Here's GCN's report on it.
My quick take: The new boss may not be the same as the old boss, but, at the very least, the rhetoric will sound strikingly similar. That is, the Mom and apple pie issues were covered extensively. R&D, science and tech education, clean tech, and broadband all were heaped praise.
Hillary's guy, Thomas Kalil, from the Center for American Progress and a Clinton 1.0 official, played right from the classic "Innovation Agenda" playbook shared by many. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Most of these "no brainer" policies have failed to connect to the right synapse at the right time in the last eight years to fully please many techies. An Administration and a few different shades of Congresses can all look in the mirror.
Obama's rep was a VC named Julius Genachowski. He's been a friend of Obama since they went to law school together. Genachowski mentioned Obama's fairly detailed innovation plan that he unveiled at Google a couple months ago [we wrote about it here] and touched on the big themes, namely, that the premise for the plan is that tech is essential to being part of the solution for almost every major issue that is important in this campaign. However, former congressman Tom Taucke and current Verizon policy boss complained in his later keynote that no one on the campaigns were pushing this exact salient point. (Tangent: How would anyone know? While flying out for the conference, I flipped back and forth between CNN and MSNBC's coverage of the campaign and think I got about three minutes of policy substance out of five hours of frothing horse race nonsense.)
Genachowski also noted Obama's call for a federal CTO, but didn't get into specifics on what the roll of this official would play beyond noting that the CTO could help fix "market failures" in key sectors that could spur private tech investments. And, he did echo Obama's call for using tech to create government transparency.
McCain's man, Doug Holtz-Eakin, said that Mr. Campaign Finance Reform is also a big supporter of using tech for transparency. In fact, he was so transparent, that he he let everyone know that through the magic of the Internet, the senator raised $500,000 from Midnight to the morning in his post-Florida glow. Eakin took the only pro-free trade stance for the day (which we highly commend) and called to end the annual R&D tax credit extension "charade". He was notably "on message" when it came to immigration rules that impact the industry: "We will secure the borders before engaging in any other immigration reform."
Someone close to McCain mentioned to me the other day that he thinks that the senator is unnecessarily playing his business and tech creds down. Mitt may have "managed" millions of dollars, but, bygone, Big Mac was the Chairman of the pretty-darn important Senate Commerce Committee. And, as this source said, he didn't punt all of his work to staff. He got his fingernails dirty on all sorts of business critical issues. Yesterday, I don't remember Holtz-Eakin ever so much as mentioning this role and McCain didn't either in the Republican debate.
All and all, an interesting panel that said all the right things. Can't wait to get those right things done.
