bottom up change

Photo by Callie Shell, Time

Ok, I admit that I do not have 100 links for the 100 day mark, but I’m off to a good start with this post.  There is a lot of interesting material on the internet analyzing and documenting the first 100 days of the 44th President, Barack Obama.  I thought it would be more useful to link to some of these sites rather than add my two cents.  Maybe I’ll just give my one cent though.

President Obama is vindicating all of us who voted for him.  The biggest question people had about Barack Obama during the campaign was whether this guy who rose so quickly was for real–whether he was ready.  The results of the first 100 days reflect a very successful start to Obama’s first term when one considers how many problems we are facing.  I mean, did Obama really need swine flu added to pirates taking an American hostage, a serious banking crisis, two wars, a major recession, the torture memos, a failing auto industry, global warming, as well as problems in Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and the Middle East?  I can’t imagine a presidency facing such a range of problems starting off better than Obama’s first 100 days.

Now to the links.  Here’s a terrific photo journal by Time’s Callie Shell taken throughout Obama’s first 100 days.  Time looks at noteworthy quotes from Obama and his administration.  An interactive guide is another cool feature at Time’s website.  One last piece from Time I’ll mention is this great analysis by Joe Klien, which argues that Obama has had a hugely successful first 100 days, but that we don’t yet know if his policies will work.  Dan Balz of the Washington Post writes about Obama’s lightening paced start and his very ambitious agenda.  This long piece in the Washington Post takes a look at the lessons learned from the stimulus battle, and the way that the administration changed their tactics afterward.  In fact, just check out all the content in the Washington Post’s special section today including a piece that looks at the history of the 100 day benchmark and asks if it’s relevant any more. In a very intriguing piece at Politico, Jonathan Martin speculates on the 10 biggest upcoming decisions Obama may face in the next 100 days.  Politico’s Mike Allen writes about how even after 100 days, the GOP still doesn’t know how to deal with Obama.  Mike Allen, Jim Vandehei, and John Harris write about what we’ve learned about Obama during his presidency so far.  Todd Purdham looks at how the political climate in Washington DC has changed during the Obama era.  For all of Politico’s coverage of the first 100 days, check out the magazine and try to get your hands on one if possible–it’s worth it.  At the New York Times there’s a fascinating account of the tough decisions Obama faced in dealing with the auto crisis and how this was a pivotal moment early in his term.  Another NYT feature: statistical comparisons showing changes that have taken place over the past 100 days.

For some skeptical accounts of Obama’s first 100 days, check out the National Review Online.  NRO invites a group of conservative pundits to offer their take on Obama’s first 100 days here.  Jonah Goldberg has a particularly scathing review of the early months of Obama’s term, arguing that Obama’s “arrogance” will be his downfall.  Another bad review of Obama’s first 100 days comes from (surprise!) Karl Rove, who argues that Obama has “outsourced” policy making to Congress.

Cartoon by xkcd.com

Evgeny Morozov has an opinion piece out today called, “Swine Flu: Twitter’s Power To Misinform“.  Morozov argues that because of some overly zealous Twitter users spreading false information, the medium itself is unreliable and not a useful tool for quickly gathering information in a crisis.  Specifically, Twitter’s 140 character limit is the primary problem because it allows users to relay information (and sometimes misinformation) without providing context.  Moreover, government agencies have not been quick enough to adopt social media, so Twitter users are having to rely on those driven by panic or those in search of more followers.  Morozov writes:

In situations like this, there is some pathological about people wanting to post yet another status update containing the coveted most-searched words – only for the sake of gaining more people to follow them. And yet the bottom line is that tracking the frequency of Twitter mentions of swine flu as a means of predicting anything thus becomes useless (however, there are plenty of other non-Twitter ways to track the epidemic and Mashable does a good job of summing them all up).

That aside, the “swine flu” Twitter-scare has once again proved the importance of context — and how badly most Twitter conversations are hurt by the lack of it. The problem with Twitter is that there is very little context you can fit into 140 characters, even less so if all you are doing is watching a stream of messages that mention “swine flu.” Now, the lack of context is probably not a problem in 99 percent of discussions happening on Twitter — or, at least, it’s not a problem with devastating global consequences.

However, in the context of a global pandemic — where media networks are doing their best to spice up an already serious threat — having millions of people wrap up all their fears into 140 characters and blurt them out in the public might have some dangerous consequences, networked panic being one of them.

But this analysis is wrong on several levels.  Morozov seems to recognize that there’s a hole in his argument when he points out that 99 percent of discussions will not be infected (couldn’t resist) with misinformation.  The fact is, the misinformation out there is far outweighed by the good information that is relayed through Twitter.

First of all, most users of Twitter include links to the source of their information, or they suggest that other users read an article or a website that is being linked to.  These links often provide the context that 140 characters do not allow.  For instance, I wouldn’t have learned about a very useful compilation of websites to go to about the swine flu outbreak if I hadn’t seen @Mashable post a link on Twitter to How To: Track Swine Flu Online.

Furthermore, while the Department of Homeland Security (@homelandsecurit) and the Department of Health and Human Services (@hhs_gov) have not done a good job updating their Twitter accounts about swine flu, the Center for Disease Control’s Twitter account @CDCemergency has been an excellent resource for reliable information and it is updated frequently.  Since its first tweet on April 22nd, there have been 56 updates, with 19 updates on April 26 alone.  If Morozov’s piece is instructive, its lesson is that we need more government agencies posting more frequently on Twitter.  But if so, that point would go in favor of the argument that Twitter is a useful tool for spreading accurate information quickly.

There is a lot of hype around new social media platforms, and especially Twitter, so stories that try to knock it down a few pegs are to be expected.  But just because some Twitterers don’t do their homework before posting doesn’t mean that the rest of us aren’t getting reliable information.  And why worry so much about the 1 percent that don’t know how to distinguish fact from fiction?  If it wasn’t Twitter, these people would be checking out conspiracy theory websites anyway.  It’s best to encourage government agencies like HHS and DHS to use Twitter better rather than panic about the panic on Twitter.

For real:

Photo by Jared Elosta

That is the amount of federal taxes paid so far this year.  Oddly, DC residents have yet to call for a tea party or secession.

As my friends know, I’ve become addicted to blogging.  I knew this would happen, which is part of the reason why I resisted starting a blog for years, for the fear that it would eat up all my free time.  Well, that is pretty much happening, and I’ve been enjoying every minute of it.  But every now and then I step back and ask myself, “Why am I spending so much time doing this?”  Today was one of those days.

This line of thought started while I was having lunch today with a friend and colleague from the Obama campaign at the outdoor fish market in Washington DC.  I told her that I was thinking about going to Europe this summer, but money was kind of tight.  And even more important: how would I blog regularly if I was traveling in Europe taking in all the sights???  Now, I admit that there is something very wrong about this reason for not wanting to visit Europe.  It’s not as if there are no bloggers in Europe, or internet cafes.  But I have been wanting to move to DC for the summer to do freelance writing and blogging on the political scene.  Crazy, right?

Anyway, my friend asked me what I liked about blogging.  My reply was that it was a creative outlet and it gives me a reason to go to events and talk to people I might not ordinarily talk to.  I’m a political and news junkie, so it’s a more productive use of my time than simply consuming news all the time.  And finally, I am fascinated by the ways that politics, government, and the media are changing right now, in part due to President Obama and his administration, and in part due to developments in technology.

Well, those are my own personal reasons for enjoying blogging.  But is there any other point to blogging besides the enjoyment bloggers take in commenting on whatever they’re interested in?  I started thinking more about this after reading Jeff Jarvis’ post, “Journalists: Where Do You Add Value?” at his blog BuzzMachine.  He writes:

Journalism can’t afford repetition and production anymore.

Every minute of a journalist’s time will need to go to adding unique value to the news ecosystem: reporting, curating, organizing. This efficiency is necessitated by the reduction of resources. But it is also a product of the link and search economy: The only way to stand out is to add unique value and quality. My advice in the past has been: If you can’t imagine why someone would link to what you’re doing, you probably shouldn’t be doing it. And: Do what you do best and link to the rest. The link economy is ruthless in judging value.

The question every journalist must ask is: Am I adding value?

This isn’t only a good question for journalists.  It’s also a good question for bloggers to ask themselves.  Maybe some bloggers don’t care much whether they are “adding value” (by the way, I hate that phrase) but I think that any blogger worth reading should care.  I’ve never liked the attitude of novelists that says, “I don’t care what my audience thinks, I write for my own artistic satisfaction.”  If you’re a writer, you must care what your audience thinks.  It’s the same as any form of communication, unless you are content to be communicating with yourself.

So, what is the point of blogging?  I don’t have any well-thought-out answers to this question right now.  Clearly, a lot of us enjoy reading blogs for a variety of reasons.  But is there anything beyond enjoyment?  I think that Jarvis has good advice for bloggers in addition to journalists: “Do what you do best and link to the rest.”

“I will not permit the criminalization of policy differences, but it is my duty to uphold the law” said Attorney General Eric Holder Thursday at the House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, which I was fortunate to attend.  It was a fascinating hearing.  Along with Obama, Holder is now the major player in what is unfolding as one of the most significant political scandals in recent history.  This hearing presented Holder’s first public comments since Tuesday, when President Obama stated that prosecutions of those who authorized torture “is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws and I don’t want to prejudge that.”  Obama has stated clearly that he does not believe that CIA officers who participated in “enhanced interrogation methods” should be subject to prosecution.  But Obama has left the door open to prosecutions of the Justice Department lawyers from the Bush administration who devised the interrogation methods.

Holder was consistently asked whether he would seek the prosecution of Office of Legal Council (OLC) attorneys, and he consistently evaded answering.  The statement above was the closest thing to an answer he gave, and it reveals the dilemma facing Holder and the President.  The Attorney General is not ruling out prosecutions, but he also seems to recognize the fine line between upholding the law and prosecuting lawyers who do their best to interpret the law but err.

During the hearing, Rep. Wolf (R-VA) pressed Holder as to whether or not the DOJ would release more memos relating to the alleged effectiveness of “enhanced interrogation.”  Dick Cheney, who has been appearing increasingly nervous and defensive about the torture memos, has claimed that there are other memos that show that these interrogation methods resulted in valuable information.  Holder answered, “There are other OLC memos that have not been released, and it is my hope that they will be released in the future.”  When Rep. Wolf asked specifically whether memos existed which showed the results of the interrogation methods, Holder said, “I am not familiar with those memos.  I cannot say that they exist.”

The hearing Thursday was high drama.  The stakes are huge.  We are still facing a potential economic meltdown.  At the same time, we are trying to clean up a moral meltdown during the Bush administration.  President Obama faced a very stark choice in whether to release the torture memos.  By doing so, he recognized that he may be setting the stage for an ugly showdown with Bush-era loyalists.  But whether or not America tortures is a very serious moral issue that we are now finally facing head-on.  Today the Washington Post reported on President Obama’s dramatic and tense meetings over whether to release the torture memos.  The piece reveals how difficult the issue was for Obama and how he made his decision:

Seated in Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s West Wing office with about a dozen of his political, legal and security appointees, Obama requested a mini-debate in which one official was chosen to argue for releasing the memos and another was assigned to argue against doing so. When it ended, Obama dictated on the spot a draft of his announcement that the documents would be released, while most of the officials watched, according to an official who was present. The disclosure happened the next day.

Whatever one thinks of Obama’s decision to release the memos, this is a significant demonstration of leadership.  He decided on the spot after hearing a debate among his senior staff that the public had a right to know about the torture memos.  With this decision, Obama may be gambling his agenda.

Check out On Point’s program yesterday for an interesting discussion of the cap-and-trade proposals to limit carbon emissions.

I have been reading Philosoraptor longer than almost any other blog.  I think I started reading it in the summer of 2003, just a few months after it got started.  Before I even knew about the Daily Kos or Andrew Sullivan’s blog, Philosoraptor was my daily go-to for sharp political analysis from a philosophical perspective.  But mainly, the great thing about this blog is Winston Smith’s use of logic and humor to shred bad arguments and ridicule people who make a living spreading BS.

Anyway, as if to prove my point, Winston has been writing some very perceptive posts at his blog about the torture memos.  Sullivan doesn’t have anything on this.  Why?  Just check out the post, “Bybee Memo: The SERE is OK, Therefore Torture Is Ok Argument”.  Winston shows in a very brief post why Bybee is full of it when he argued that the SERE program proved that the interrogation methods used after 9/11 were not torture.  When we’re arguing about torture, the person you really want to talk with is a philosopher who understands logic and takes it seriously.

David Plouffe meeting with OFA New England Steering Committee, 4/17/09

If you have been wondering what ever happened to David Plouffe, the mastermind of Barack Obama’s fundraising and field operation during the primaries and the general election campaign, here is the answer.  Plouffe is currently writing a book, and he has an informal role as a fundraiser for Organizing for America (OFA).  He’s also going around the country raising money for OFA from wealthy donors.  Last Friday, April 17, I was lucky to see him make a fundraising pitch to the Obama for America New England Steering Committee meeting at the Foley Hoag law firm in the Seaport district of Boston.  The NE Steering Committee was a fundraising arm of the Obama campaign, raising money for Barack Obama from high-income donors.  50 members of the Steering Committee raised $250,000 or more during the campaign.  Now, the Steering Committee is transitioning to support Organizing for America and other Democratic races.

Plouffe began his talk by noting just how key a role money played in allowing Obama to win certain battleground states that had not been battlegrounds in years.  Money enabled grassroots organizing to take place on a scale never achieved before in a political campaign.  In Plouffe’s words, “We were able to talk to every voter we wanted to talk with multiple times.”  Plouffe argued that the same focus on organizing at the grassroots level will be critical in helping Obama pass legislation over the next four years, and in electing Democrats.  Here are some fascinating numbers from his talk:

• Obama spent $38 million in Florida and $31 million in North Carolina.  If OFA had spent less, Plouffe said, they wouldn’t have won these states.

• Obama won 67 percent of the Hispanic vote, the widest margin of any presidential candidate ever.

• There were 6 million active supporters during the campaign–these are people who either donated money or volunteered 10-20 hours a week in the general election.

• Half of all of Obama’s active supporters had never been involved in a political campaign before, meaning they had never contributed and never volunteered.

• Obama’s e-mail list grew to 13 million individuals.

• OFA had 6,000 staffers in 16 battleground states

• Currently, 68 percent of independents support President Obama’s agenda, which is a historically high number

Some of the more “inside baseball” details that I thought were interesting were the following.  Plouffe thinks that North Carolina will be a major toss-up again in 2012, but incredibly, he said that Virginia will not be a toss-up state.  There has been a sea change in Virginia politics, Plouffe said, that will make it very hard for Republicans to win there in the near future.  Having lived in Virginia for nearly a decade, that is a bold statement, and it may be overly optimistic.  Another major shift has occured in the Southwest, where Hispanics and independent voters allowed Obama to win in states that weren’t even close for Kerry in 2004–Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico.  He said that Obama would have won Arizona if McCain hadn’t been from that state.  Plouffe also said that we must distinguish between Republicans and “Washington Republicans.”  The latter, he said, are in complete disarray, and will only be “throwing stones” at the President over the next few years because they don’t have any new ideas.  He advised the audience not to worry about Washington Republicans, but to focus on trying to persuade the many everyday Republicans who may be increasingly receptive to the Democrats’ message over the next few years.

His message about Organizing for America was that it will take the lessons learned of the 2008 campaign and transition into a field organization with a focus on governing as well as the upcoming 2010 elections.  It’s still in its early stages, it has a very small staff right now, and it needs financial support in order to place staff in congressional districts across the country.  In his talk, it was clear that Plouffe thinks the main value of this new organizing structure is to facilitate “people talking with people.”  I was surprised to hear that he was skeptical of the value of voters calling Congress, calling it a “discredited tactic”.  Instead, Plouffe seems convinced that one of the main ingredients of Obama’s succcess during the campaign was the team leader model, or in his words, having thousands of grassroots “message ambassadors” go out and talk to their friends, family, and neighbors.  As a member of the field staff during the general election, I can testify that having so many committed volunteers who were talking with neighbors played a major role in Obama’s win.  Trusting the messenger is becoming increasingly important in the age of 24 hour opinion-based news and tit-for-tat attack ads on TV.

When Plouffe’s talk was over, a crowd of admirers surrounded him, many with their business cards in hand.  I thought I wasn’t going to get a chance to meet him until, as I was leaving, I noticed him beside me walking to the elevator with a DNC staffer.  I asked him what he thought of the recent tea party protests against Obama.  He paused and said they were silly, but that we need to cut spending.  A candid statement from a straightforward, humble, and brilliant political operative.

I was talking with a friend over the weekend who made the point that using “reconciliation” in the budget process to pass health care reform might be a very risky strategy for Democrats.  Reconciliation is a legislative tool that the Senate can use to move a budget forward on a simple-majority vote, thereby avoiding a filibuster.  My friend pointed out that if Democrats do this, it may set a precedent that would lead to Republicans passing their major pieces of legislation with a mere fifty-plus-one vote.  The result could be a blow to the political stability of the United States, where change has historically been incremental and relatively slow.  Even worse, you could conceivably have dramatic swings in major policy areas if political control changes hands in a short period of time.

I’m sympathetic to this argument, but ultimately, I think health care reform needs to be passed this year by any means necessary.  I’ve come to this conclusion after reading about the health care problems we’re facing in states like North Carolina, and the personal problems individuals are dealing with when it comes to health care. Also disturbing are the rising costs of Medicare and Medicaid, as seen here at the CBO’s website.  If Republicans are going to try to block major health care reform legislation this year, they would not be exercising a cautious check on majority rule.  An irresponsible filibuster of health care reform would justify using extraordinary means to pass this legislation.  So in this rare case, reconciliation would be necessary, I think.

I know, I know, the tea parties are an old story now.  The 24 hour news cycle certainly moves fast, doesn’t it?  As a responsible blogger, I should have written at least one post by now about the torture memos and Obama’s decision not to prosecute.  After all, Andrew Sullivan has written around 50 posts in two days on this subject.  But I’m still stuck on the tea parties.  Bad, bad, bad.

Jeff Pasley and Ben Carp of Public Occurances 2.0 have written some terrific posts this week on the tea parties, starting from a historical perspective but also going into the contemporary politics.  Jeff Pasley points out the archaic nature of many proposed libertarian solutions to modern day problems, and how usually they just don’t fit the times.  He also reminds us, with Jon Stewart, that we shouldn’t take the tea parties too seriously.  Ben posted a useful collection of links on the tea parties, one being this hilarious segment of the Daily Show’s John Oliver covering the protests.  Even though I stand by my attempt to take the tea party protests seriously, there is a lot to laugh about here.  But then again, protests from the left or the right are usually ridiculous.

By the way, Ben has written a very interesting piece in Sunday’s Washington Post opinion page about the historical parallels (or lack thereof) between the anti-Obama tea parties and the real Boston Tea Party of 1773.  He also does some great reporting of his experience attending the tea party in New York City.  Be sure to check it out.