Sean Flaherty, GWU graduate and 23 year-old Democrat, credits a Facebook strategy with heping him win a seat in Maine’s State House for District 127.

What was my first move of the campaign? Creating a Facebook group – Sean Flaherty For Scarborough.

I invited all of my friends, the ones from my home town, the ones from DC, and even the random people who I barely knew. The whole point was to spread the word and make it look like I had huge support before I even moved back into the district.

Flaherty details his strategy on Inside Facebook.

With all the excitement of the election and the transition to a new Presidency, some details have been lost along the way. One of the most important, but overlooked questions is: What role will technology play in the Obama administration?

Just the other day, a New York Times report surfaced that Obama may have to give up his Blackberry and personal email address when he enters the Oval Office. At first glance, this seems like a Luddite move. On the contrary, it is a decision based on security. Many email services such as AOL, Hotmail, and Gmail are not secure enough for government correspondence and are more susceptible to being hacked. As was seen with Sarah Palin, it is quite embarrassing when a leader’s email is exposed to the public.

Barack Obama wants to have a laptop computer on his desk in the White House. This may not seem like a giant leap-since laptops have been around since the 1980s-but he will be the first President to do so. Besides his personal use of technology, it is worth looking at how technology will affect policy in the new administration.

One of the biggest successes of the Obama campaign for President was the amount of emails and cell phone numbers it collected. With this information, Obama can now connect directly with much of the American populace; he will not have to worry about the filter of the mainstream media. Combined with the power of online video, Barack could become his own news network. Look out CNN!

When crafting policy, Obama will look to technology to save money. He has already proposed overhauling federal agencies’ performance metrics with more efficient and accurate technologies. Bringing private sector solutions into government could be a huge cost savings to the taxpayer.

While in the United States Senate, Obama helped to pass the Google the Government bill, which aimed to lay out every government expenditure in a database that could be searched by people(similar to how Google works). It will be interesting to see how Obama integrates this and if he mandates that all agencies move to this platform.

During his campaign, Obama promised to preserve Net Neutrality as President. With the actions of Comcast and other cable providers, it will be worth watching whether the Internet stays truly open under an Obama Presidency.

One of the keys to getting out of the current economic downturn is investment in technological infrastructure to make business and government more efficient and effective. Pushing through initiatives that improve the quality of broadband in America, invest in the sciences, and incentivize businesses in the technology sector will bolster the American economy and will further Obama’s ambitious agenda.

No matter what Obama accomplishes in the next four years, he will use technology to get it done. He would be smart to follow through on his campaign promises because he will find that technology can make even the most Luddite of places-the Federal government-work that much better.

Perhaps the shadiest aspect of this unfolding “bailout” saga is the clarity of its existence juxtaposed against the vagueness of any direct benefit to the common good. Notice the convenient lull of an election — now transition soap opera — interruption which temporarily stuffs it behind campaign cholic, giving it just enough time to simmer. We’re now in the normalcy-of-crisis mode. We didn’t forget about it, but it dropped a few notches on the priority totem pole since we’ve been a bit entranced by the election of firsts, curled into the sleep that is pop culture and our daily grind.

Still, with it rearing its unforgivably ugly head — a jobless claims rise with volatile fluctuations in the market — the euphoria of the election is cooling a bit, the expectations mounting on the new president to deliver something, even if he’s still in transition.

Thing is, our mad cool-elect (confidently strutting like modern Shaft aside the lame-duck during his recent White House tour) doesn’t want to claim this mess just yet, preferring to let the current “decider” ride out the full length of his legacy. Refusing to attend the G20 summit “send off,” he opts for the incessant speculation and sprung leak distractions of possible cabinet picks, taking the transition in calm stride. He’ll have enough to worry about on January 20th.

Of great concern is the way in which the bailout seems designed to avoid any focus on what we always thought were the economic fundamentals — or at least what they force fed some of us during college indoctrination. But, check how it fakes any acknowledgment of mass consumerism, small business and manufacturing as core support systems. “The banks can do it, slick,” is the resounding mood of the current Administration, their version of “socialism” soaked with laissez faire and hook-up. “Bailout” seems such a played and trite term — much like “flip flop” is or any of those other pop 10 favorite news sound bites that never give you the full context of what’s up. Cats are getting hooked up, fam … in a fairly big and ostentatious way. Translated: we’re getting played.

One can easily bristle and shoot back with “Well — do you have any other ideas?” That’s the rock and a hard place question. And we can probably talk till we’re purple over the traditional friction — as old as the country itself — between banking and old fashioned manufacturing. And while the banking and insurance institutions appear to hoard taxpayer cash for the long haul of low confidence, core industries such as auto are on the brink of going belly-up, risking the fate of 3 million plus gigs.

But, if you bailout… (cough) excuse me — hook up — the “Big 3″ autos (who could never seem to catch up with competitors), where does it stop?

Not professing any kind of expertise on economics, friend, but we can (at least) agree on the basics: that we’ve been sucked into a sucker’s conundrum whereby three quarters of the economy is driven by consumer spending. Simply put: we can’t stop buying. Our survival depends on it. The lack of spending will only continue to show in the worst way.

So, let’s admit, a reasonable “big idea” alternative to the “bailout” plan is in short supply. Our imagination these days only goes so far as what fixes we can buy ourselves out of. In desperate times we reach only for the most desperate of measures: more money. Should that mean we lose all sense of common sense?

This might be a ripe time to recalibrate our collective social construct on the subject. The time for a balance. In reaching this point of instant gratification with no investment, we’ve seriously compromised our ability to innovate and build. What else explains the rationale that saving the banks first is the key? Forget any ambitious plan to revise research and development or a mission to completely resuscitate American education.

On the real: why not? Crises, historically, also bring out the best and brightest in the human collective, and there is a hidden, yet gem of an opportunity to bring back the ingenuity that has defined the best moments in American history. Perhaps we pull back on this now embedded reliance on accumulated credit and debt, and instead focus on a fresh age of vocation mixed with intellectual, technological and manufacturing enlightenment. Even as the economy sputters, there is also this Science-channel inspired, HGTV-backed “DIY” or “do-it-yourself” movement on parallel resurgence. Simply, more of us appear inclined to do the “dirty work” by either making it or repairing it ourselves. Why this is a fad rather than the norm it once was escapes some.

Beyond that, it’s also a key to renewed interest in and hope for reviving national education. Or, perhaps transforming it into something other than a mad rush to comply with standardized testing requirements. The president-elect already expresses distaste for the television viewing habits of our youth and we stare back as if stupid to what that means. What it could mean is a renewed focus on putting our national minds and hands back to work, re-crafting public education with a focus on vocational education and specialized sector schools designed for students with specific interests and talents. Throw in small-to-large business sponsorships and internships for high school kids, and perhaps a long-term funding stream for health care drawn from sales of product. Why not take those school woodshop classes to the next level? What’s stopping high schools from creating early architecture, engineering or environmental science incubators and using those as platforms for core industries? Here we might find the foundation for a new economy, professionalizing our youth in preparation for tomorrow’s economic and environmental challenges. Mixed in with compulsory financial literacy and civics K through 12, it may not be so much of a “New Deal” as it would be a sense of national commitment and community service. And we might actually save quite a few cities along the way.

cellison, 11.19.08

This post was guest-blogged by Dan Manatt from Politics.TV

TO: Obama Technology Team

FROM: Dan Manatt/PoliticsTV.com

DATE: November 12, 2008

RE: Web Video: A Key Tool of the Obama Presidency

Summary

Team Obama should create/implement the following Web Video programs:

(1) WhiteHouse.gov/TV; (2) Weekly Obama Webcast; (3) GovTube; (4) put GovTube video content on non-governmental sites; (5) in every executive branch agency, create New Media, Transparency, and Technology offices; (6) have cabinet members/agency heads give monthly Webcasts; (7) Webcast the inauguration; (8) make the State of the Union an interactive, multimedia event; (9) make President’s annual budget a digital, multimedia document; (10) enact all of this and more first by executive order, then through legislation, so future Administrations can’t just hard reboot your digital legacy.

Full Memo

Congratulations on the election and the transition.

You revolutionized the way campaigns are run. And now, you are about to revolutionize the way the presidency is run.

Thank you for the opportunity you gave me to produce some of President-elect Obama’s early campaign Web Videos. In that vein – like everyone else in Internet politics these days – I figure I might add my 2 cents of unsolicited advice on how the Obama Administration should use video and rich media tools.

President-elect Obama rightly warned that making progress on the big foreign & domestic policy initiatives facing the nation will take time and compromise.

The digital democracy/transparency initiatives, by contrast, can be executed beginning day one, without the need to compromise with Congress or world allies.

Your campaign platform on digital democracy, ethics and transparency, lays out an excellent roadmap to begin bringing the Presidency into the 21st century, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/index.php. And of course the speculation has already begun on how change.gov will morph into whitehouse.gov – and what becomes of barackobama.com. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/10/AR2008111000013.html.

The technological transformation of the presidency – and its use of technology to make the executive branch more responsive, interactive, and transparent – can, from day one, be the first great achievement and legacy of the Obama Presidency. It can also be a means to continue togenerate political good will and capital – commodities that often evaporate quickly after a typical presidential honeymoon. So it not only makes good policy sense, it makes good political sense.

Web Video: The First, Now Almost Forgotten Obama Internet Tool

Now, more specifically, how the Obama Administration should use Web Video:

Web Videos were a key tool in the campaign. From President-elect Obama’s January 2007 Web Video announcement; to the independent “Yes We Can,” “Vote Different,” CrooksandLiars.com and Brave New Films videos; to the viral videos of rallies in Austin, Iowa, New Hampshire, Philadelphia, and Oregon, and everywhere in between – Web Video was key.

Web Video will be no less essential to governing as it was to campaigning and organizing.

Below are suggestions on how to harness the tool in the White House, and the executive branch:

1. WhiteHouse.gov/tv: All open press public appearances by the president – press conferences, press availabilities, signing ceremonies, addresses to the nation, etc. – should be made available to the public via Web Video in real time. Make no mistake – the White House TV press corps and even WHCA, the White House Communications Agency, may resist releasing this content into the public domain. But just as BarackTV and video transparency proved a boon to your campaign, so too WhiteHouse.gov/tv can prove an essential communications tool enabling to you directly access the American public without the media filter.

2. Radio Address + Internet = President’s Weekly Webcast: It is time for the weekly presidential radio address to enter the 21st century. The address, the president’s only regular direct communication to the American people, hasn’t changed since President Reagan first instituted it in 1983. 25 years later, it is time you take the radio address into the Internet age – you could even start during the transition.

3. GovTube: Web Video has been used by the White House going back to the webcast of President Clinton’s 1996 inauguration. And the current administration’s websites actually have a fair amount of Web Video content. But the content is very difficult to locate, and often in obsolete video formats.

The Obama Administration should create a video hub for the executive branch – call it GovTube – that aggregates all video content throughout the government in a searchable, user friendly video portal.

4. GovTube Content on YouTube et. al.: Executive branch videos, moreover, should be made available not just on official government websites, but on non-governmental sites as well. The White House should establish accounts on YouTube and other leading non-governmental sites. Potential red tape snags to having commercial sites host government videos is already being addressed: YouTube is in the process of establishing special non-commercial pages to conform to governmental requirements for Congress, and other video services should be encouraged to do the same.

5. Digital Democracy Executive Order: New Media/Transparency/Technology Officers: To accomplish these goals (and the ones below), President Obama should issue an executive order as soon as practicable directing all executive departments and agencies to implement these policies. Moreover, the Executive Order should direct all departments and agencies to create offices of, and name director of:

New Media

Technology

Transparency

Large departments may require multiple staff for these tasks; small agencies may require a single staffer who can fulfill the mandate of all three positions.

6. Secretary/Agency Webcasts: This one’s already a plank in your campaign platform – executive department secretaries and agency heads should give regular (I would suggest monthly) Web Video reports on news from the agency. Some may be in town hall format, others straight reportorial format. This way, the public might even learn who their public servants are before a national challenge or crisis requires we put our trust in them. Likewise, the department secretaries and agency heads should be required to produce annual multimedia reports to citizens on their departments/agencies. These videos by the SEC and FEMA may not be as exciting as a Hollywood blockbuster, but it will generate more public exposure, scrutiny, and dialog about those agencies, and encourage the government to engage in ongoing proactive reform, rather than reforming only as a reaction to scandal.

7. The Inauguration: President Obama’s first day in office offers a tremendous opportunity to get the Digital Presidency started right. From his swearing in, to the inaugural balls, video of all events should be available via live and on demand webcast. The inaugural committee should also have a “video guest book” enabling Americans, heads of states, and well-wishers the world over to offer video greetings and express hopes for the Obama presidency.

8. State of the Union: Just a few weeks later, President Obama’s first State of the Union will offer the most important annual opportunity to engage the American public, aided by multimedia:

• Citizen Interaction: Prior to the annual address, the Administration might solicit citizen messages – videos, email, etc. – with their view on the national outlook. Perhaps in the run up to the State of the Union, the President may hold some truly interactive town halls, as Ross Perot proposed back in 1992 and Senator Clinton did in the primaries. President Obama could then incorporate some of the citizen messages into his annual message to Congress – thus it becomes not just the President’s report on the State of the Union, but American’s report on the State of the Union.
• SOTU MultiMedia Simulcast: The White House should produce a multimedia version/companion to the State of the Union – a split-screen simulcast. On one side, we see the president – on the other, charts, slides, text, etc. to illustrate and reenforce the key points of the speech. Think of it as a cross between “An Inconvenient Truth” and a traditional State of the Union.

9. The President’s Budget – A Digital, Democratic, Multimedia Document: No document is more fundamental to the United States government (that is, other than the Constitution, when it’s actually heeded) than the President’s budget. But the only place the average citizen might ever see the budget is during the annual photo opp of its release. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080204-1.html

The president’s budget should become a multimedia document that makes the numbers – and the policy questions – accessible to the average citizen. The budget should be released online – not just as a pdf, as it is now, but as a multimedia, dynamic document with web apps, widgets, and appendices applying Quicken-style functionalities, dynamic charts, etc. That way Americans can visualize and understand where their $3 trillion in tax dollars (minus the $1 trillion deficit) goes to. (Perhaps not surprisingly, private sites, including Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget, offer citizens better digital tools to understand the budget than the White House and the OMB, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/).

The American people have been bystanders to the annual budget debates because the federal budget is so inaccessible. Digitize the budget and you democratize it, get the public involved – and get better policy results.

The Digital Democracy Act/Freedom of Information Act for the 21st Century

The Obama Administration, in addition to these and other actions that can be made by presidential directive or executive order, should institutionalize its digital reforms into law through legislation – call it the Digital Democracy Act, or FOIA for the 21st century. This way future administrations would not be able to discontinue the Obama Administration’s digital transparency policies without congressional action. And Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid, and their excellent new media staff (especially Jesse Lee, Karina Newton, and Murshed Zaheed) have been very supportive of digital/transparency measures, so the climate is very favorable for such an initiative.

The Presidency, Technology, Democracy & Transparency

This is just the tip of the iceberg of how Web Video can, along with other Internet and digital technology, be a big part of the Obama Presidency, and can be one of its great legacies.

I am sure you are way ahead of me, and have many other, greater ideas of how video tools can be deployed to advance the cause of transparency, democracy, and President Obama’s agenda.

I will be watching from the sidelines with great interest.

This post is guest blogged by Dr. Louis Perron, an alumnus of GW’s Graduate School of Political Management, and a political consultant in Switzerland. His company is Perron Campaigns. In this post, Perron describes the Obama win for a mostly non-American, international audience.

The longest, most expensive, and most professional election campaign ever is over. The result is historic: the first African American will move into the White House. To use economic terms, a start-up with an exotic name (Obama) has beaten two market leaders (Clinton, McCain). There is a lot that campaigners, politicians, parties, companies and interest groups around the world can learn from the Obama campaign.

Sure, there are at least three circumstances that have little to do with the campaign but helped Obama enormously. President Bush has done such a lousy job that more than two thirds of Americans now have a negative opinion about his work. Also, after following Bush blindly during the war in Iraq , the U.S. media, this time around, was on the side of the Democrats. Finally, if Wall Street did not collapse, it probably would have been much closer (let’s not forget that McCain was slightly ahead early September). Now, that’s all correct. But what I am focusing on in this update are the factors that the campaign could control and how it did that.

Some observers think that the impressive thing about the Obama campaign is how it used the internet and other new technology. 8,000 internet groups, 50,000 local events and 1.5 million internet volunteers are indeed impressive. But that’s only one part of the story. Politicians often think that a campaign means to produce things such as TV spots, leaflets, or websites. In reality, however, a campaign can and should be seen as a series of decisions regarding the message, the strategy, fundraising, and products. The Obama campaign has reached these decisions early on and based on extensive research including polling and focus group discussions.

In numerous updates, articles, and speeches, I have emphasized the importance of a coherent and credible message. Politicians often think of a message as a slogan, in most cases nothing more than an empty motherhood statement. However, a good message is more than a slogan yet less than a party program. In the case of Obama, this was the message:

Barack Obama will bring the change that America desperately needs. He will get the economy going again, not only for Wall Street but also for Main Street. In concrete, this means tax cuts for 95% of Americans and expanded health-care. Unlike the other politicians, Obama has opposed the war in Iraq since the beginning. It’s time for a new hope and to leave the divisiveness behind us. Yes, we can!

The message was then summarized in a catchy slogan: change we can believe in and change we need. There was probably no one left in the country who did not know what Obama stood for. These are not empty motherhood statements such as “your guy,” “your friend,” or “fighting for you.” It is exactly what the targeted groups wanted to hear, a perfect and well researched match between the political demand and the political offer. According to the exit polls, 71% of those who were dissatisfied with Bush voted for Obama. Sixty-three percent of the voters said that the economy was their top concern and they voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Obama’s position on the war in Iraq has helped in drawing clear differences between him and Hillary during the primary.

If you are planning a campaign right now, ask yourself the following questions: have you formulated such a coherent message and written it down in a campaign plan? Are you a credible messenger for that message? Is it matching the demand of your targeted group? Are there still people in the country/district who have not heard your message? If yes, what’s your plan to change that? Even better would be to use scientific public opinion research to get objective answers to these questions.

What’s impressive in the case of Obama is the coherence, with which he defined himself and the discipline, with which the message was communicated. Talking about discipline, the top candidate plays an extremely important role. Campaigns are very chaotic and there is always a potential for internal rivalries. The candidate chooses his team and only he/she can empower his people and demand discipline. In the campaigns of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John McCain (and one might add Fernando Poe Jr.), there were bitter internal rivalries and disagreement. In the case of Obama, the top candidate, the campaign manager David Plouffe, the chief strategist David Axelrod and all the thousand paid staff pushed and worked in one direction. It’s better to have a risky strategy but to have everybody on board moving in the same direction as opposed to having three clans with each pursuing its own great strategy.

There is another interesting detail: both Plouffe and Axelrod have experience in political campaigns but have never before run a Presidential campaign. This is yet another similarity between the Obama campaign and Bill Clinton’s run in 1992 (and a clear difference with the losing campaigns of Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton): young, hungry people win Presidential campaigns.

In my personal experience, European and Asian politicians focus too much on products and funds, and not enough about message, strategy and discipline. Especially in a bottom up, grassroots campaign, discipline is crucial. A movement with so many local layers and volunteers is only working if everybody believes enthusiastically in the same cause and if there is message discipline on top. The people who blogged for Obama, or those who went on Facebook for Obama, did it for the same reason as the people who simply voted for him: they wanted change!

Another thing that campaigners can learn from the Obama campaign is how it carefully targeted specific groups of voters and put together its coalition of voters. From the very beginning, the Obama campaign wanted to expand its base by registering and turning out record numbers of young and black voters. And, it allocated the resources accordingly. The result: 96% of blacks voted for Obama; they made up 13% of the total electorate (+2% compared to 2004). 66% of the 18-29 year old voted for Obama. They formed 18% of the electorate (+1% compared to 2004).

From the very beginning, the campaign wanted to expand the electoral map of possible swing states so as to have multiple ways to reach the needed 270 electoral votes. Again, it allocated the resources accordingly and stayed loyal to the strategy even in difficult times. The result is a landslide win in the Electoral College.

Linked to the message is also the messenger. Barack Obama is a once-in-a-generation talent in terms of communication and campaign skills. I simply don’t know of anyone who has watched an Obama speech live and who was not deeply impressed. However, this did not fall from heaven. On the one hand, he strategically used his strength, namely giving speeches. Like other great speakers before him, he has in fact built his entire career around speeches. On the other hand, he invested a lot of time and resources into becoming a better candidate. The team did extensive focus group research to explore weaknesses and find out ways to neutralize them.

Listen to Louis Perron discuss his analysis of the election results online on the German-language programs Der Club and Die Rundschau.

Over the next few months, IPDI will be working much more closely with GWU’s Graduate School of Political Management (GSPM). Our site, for example, will merge with their site. Our Politics Online Conference will be co-hosted by IPDI and GSPM (and Campaigns and Elections’ Politics Magazine!). IPDI has also worked closely with the GSPM to develop three new online politics classes that will launch on a graduate level this January.

And our blog will truly become “our” blog, compiling IPDI’s posts with those of GSPM faculty, staff, and alumni — including a lot of video.

This explains why I’ve been so quickly lately. And hopefully it will also explain why, suddenly, we will become very active and very loud once again.

Expect to hear more about all of the above soon.

This post was guest blogged by Edward A. Grefe, a professor in GW’s Graduate School of Political Management (GSPM) and director of the GSPM’s graduate certificate in Community Advocacy.

Every political campaign lends itself to becoming warfare. The stakes are high. Coming in second offers zero consolation. Winning is all that matters. The temptation to play “spit ball” instead of “hard ball” is an easy call especially if one is losing.

Because we see political campaigns as battles, strategies reflect those of a military exercise, even Wall Street. The tactics employed make campaign managers the political equivalent of a combination battlefield commander, mortgage bundler and derivative salesman. Just win, make the sale, as nothing succeeds like success, a consequence that can be very ugly – certainly during the campaign itself and occasionally later.

The primary strategy is simple. Build one’s own base. Then destroy one’s opponent so effectively that voters either switch or become so disenchanted with the ugliness of the process itself that they stay home. As a former campaign consultant I did not want to see anyone at the polls who I was not certain supported my candidate. Voter suppression is a double entendre – keep them from coming to the polls or challenge their right to be there.

Because losing is so ignominious, candidates who in any other setting would seem normal make their Faustian bargain to win at any cost. They then buy into the notion of the campaign not as a battle of ideas over governing philosophies but as a fight to the death over the authenticity of their opponent’s right to even serve in public office.

Challenging an opponent on the basis of whether she or he is truly someone who should serve in office can be racism, nativism, sexism, or a combination. In any event the message is designed to question whether the candidate is a “real American,” challenging their views as motives that are suspect if not, by hint, downright treasonous.

The vitriol seeping into this year’s presidential effort is not new. On the presidential level there seems to be a twenty-year cycle for the appearance of code masking racism or nativism. What may be slightly different is the impact of the Republican campaigners and their modern day “Father Coughlin’s,” that in their bombast to rally their listener base – and increase Nielsen ratings – also incite some to incendiary action.

This year we see McCain campaign tactics adopted by Republican acolytes who learned their craft in 1988 from Lee Atwater. That was the year Bush “41” defeated Michael Dukakis by using the Willie Horton ad so effectively. Dukakis was made first into a caricature, a standard technique of Atwater, then destroyed by ads designed to accentuate white voters fear of blacks.

Atwater said, “People do not vote their hopes. They vote their fears.” He taught Karl Rove and others how to manipulate voter’s fears. The fear they stroke well is the discomfort some have with anyone who is not white, not born again, or does not speak English, someone clearly understood by the listener to be “not really one of us.”

Race was an issue in 1968. George Wallace was a racist and sought to build his presidential ambitions by rallying white voters fearful of Martin Luther King. King was assassinated that year.

1948 was also a year in which race was raised at a presidential level. At the Democratic convention Hubert Humphrey sought to deny seating to the all-white Mississippi delegation. Ultimately, the race issue led to the break-away Dixiecrats campaign.

1928 seems to be the first campaign of this cycle. Then it was not a black or a woman on the ticket but a Roman Catholic, at the time viewed as “un-American” by those who voted Republican as today’s Republican Party views Barack Obama.

With most campaigns those who lose recover quickly from the bitter taste of defeat resolving to learn from their mistakes and do better in the next election. A few however generate such hate that among the losers there is sown a hostility that can explode into violence.

The aftermath of the “spit ball” strategy in this campaign may haunt us as much we were haunted following the 1960 election, especially as we hear cries of “kill him” that go unchallenged at McCain-Palin rallies. It is important to recall the mood in some parts of the country prior to the Kennedy assassination when an unruly mob attacked our U.S. Ambassador, Adlai Stevenson.

Charges of guilt by association – no matter how incidental – can feed those same fearful folks who suspect that conspiracies abound to “destroy America.” Suggesting that an opponent is both un-American and a terrorist can give license to the unbalanced to take uncivil action.

Perhaps 2008 will be the end of both the cycle of hate as a campaign strategy and as cause for civil unrest among even the listeners to right wing radio and television. If so the election of Obama will truly be transformative. It will erase 400 years of history and end finally the Civil War. It will also restore the U.S. to its lofty – but recently lost – position as the beacon of democracy.

Calling all students in the Washington, DC area …

What does the Internet mean to you?

Is it all about social network or entertainment or healthcare … or all three?

How is broadband deployed, and how do we insure continued growth?

What role should government play? What role shouldn’t it play?

That’s what we want to find out.

So please come and discuss your thoughts and concerns with leaders from the broadband community.

Please join us November 6th from 5:45 to 6:45 pmat the GSPM library of GWU, 805 21st Street, NW, Suite 401, Washington, DC, 20052. Food and drinks will be provided. Sponsored by NextGenWeb.org.

As November 4th nears, the racial tone of the race gets hotter, the decibels flow higher.  Some of it is media sensationalism, much of it the sensitivity of the citizenry.  Hence, since the larger electorate isn’t as politically savvy as it should be and since campaigns are less about issues and more about horse race, the creation of the “buzzword” and “sound bite.”   This  burns us to no end, but it’s the reality of American politics.

There are many folks out there who are loosely throwing buzz words into the public sphere and daily conversation just because it sounds good or “intelligent” to do that.  Some folks like the drama, or feed into it.  But, it’s not all that deep sometimes.  We here, on the daily, a lot of Black peeps who keep worrying over the “Bradley Effect” - much of that drawn from the DNA of our cultural cynicism after 400 years in this joint.  There are many who would like to believe (or are simply engineering an explanation or rationalization if Obama loses on Nov. 4th) that there are a bunch of White voters out there who are plotting to do an electoral okie doke - trip up pollsters, get us hype then do the opposite at the voting booth.

Not feeling this for some reason.

For one, what’s up with applying old school concepts to new school paradigm shifts?  It appears we’ve passed that point where everything conventional about American politics is now unconventional.  Two: the racial code action figure set wording is driving us up the wall: Joe the Plumber, Joe Six Pack, Hockey Moms, “Real America”, “Bradley Effect” - enough of that.  But, three, as Nate Silver gets into it on FiveThirtyEight.com:

With so many “X factors” like race, cell phones and turnout, there is probably an extra margin of error this year. And polls aren’t terrifically accurate to begin with. But there is no reason to conclude that the polls are systematically overestimating Obama’s support; the reverse is at least as likely to be true. McCain, in all likelihood, will need to win this election fair and square—which means that he has his work cut out for him.

As November 4th nears, the racial tone of the race gets hotter, the decibels flow higher.  Some of it is media sensationalism, much of it the sensitivity of the citizenry.  Hence, since the larger electorate isn’t as politically savvy as it should be and since campaigns are less about issues and more about horse race, the creation of the “buzzword” and “sound bite.”   This  burns us to no end, but it’s the reality of American politics.

There are many folks out there who are loosely throwing buzz words into the public sphere and daily conversation just because it sounds good or “intelligent” to do that.  Some folks like the drama, or feed into it.  But, it’s not all that deep sometimes.  We here, on the daily, a lot of Black peeps who keep worrying over the “Bradley Effect” - much of that drawn from the DNA of our cultural cynicism after 400 years in this joint.  There are many who would like to believe (or are simply engineering an explanation or rationalization if Obama loses on Nov. 4th) that there are a bunch of White voters out there who are plotting to do an electoral okie doke - trip up pollsters, get us hype then do the opposite at the voting booth.

We’re not feeling this for some reason.

For one, what’s up with applying old school concepts to new school paradigm shifts?  It appears we’ve passed that point where everything conventional about American politics is now unconventional.  Two: the racial code wording is driving us up the wall: Joe the Plumber, Joe Six Pack, Hockey Moms, “Real America”, “Bradley Effect” - enough of that.  But, three, as Nate Silver gets into it on FiveThirtyEight.com:

With so many “X factors” like race, cell phones and turnout, there is probably an extra margin of error this year. And polls aren’t terrifically accurate to begin with. But there is no reason to conclude that the polls are systematically overestimating Obama’s support; the reverse is at least as likely to be true. McCain, in all likelihood, will need to win this election fair and square—which means that he has his work cut out for him.

Thus, keeping it real.  Basically, folks need to drop the “Bradley” buzz and simply make certain they and everyone they know who is eligible go vote.

While on tour, signing books in Harlem, NY, two middle-aged, Caucasian Australians from Brisbon somehow ended up within conversation distance.  Vacationing in the Big Apple, they sought refuge from the hundreds converging on Adam Clayton Powell Bldg. square on 125th Street in a last ditch effort at voter registration as New York’s deadline loomed.

There was much music, many folks, the thump of dancehall and hip hop in the crisp Fall air and lots of clipboards.  Something about this festive hour some two hundred yards away from the Apollo disturbed newfound Aussie friends.

“You register to vote?” they frowned.

“Yeah …,” confused.

“Why’s that?”

“Wait - I don’t understand. What do you mean?”

Not knowing much about Australian politics, student of American politics got schooled on Australia’s compulsory voting system.  How you get fined in Australia if you don’t vote.  How Australian elections are “boring” but at least every citizen participates.  They were stunned that we weren’t doing the same thing in the U.S., assuming mandatory voting was the norm. A small group of us schooled them back.  Still, after 20 minutes of pleasant exchanges over our political systems, we felt a bit stupid. The rush of college kids rushing to fetch last minute registrations was surreal in the wake of our Australian conversation.

It led to an overflow of thoughts.  Why not compulsory voting here?  The answer seems obvious: we’re a democracy and democracies shouldn’t force citizens to do anything.  Still, we force people to pay taxes; we force drivers to pay tolls. The very fabric of a functioning society is based on compulsion by law - what’s the difference if we’re forced to vote?

We just appear rather ridiculous scrambling to register the unregistered every four years.  The Ultimate Solution to the voting problem may be contained within the compulsory voting model.

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Join IPDI and the George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management at Porter’s Dining Saloon for a pre-game Election Night extravaganza.  Kick back and celebrate the fruits of your labor with an evening of comfort food, drinks, prizes, and free head and neck massages for all you tired campaign staffers.  It’s the perfect way to begin the long night ahead.   Date: November 4, 2008

Time: 5pm-9pm

Location: Porter’s Dining Saloon, 1207 19th St NW, Washington, DC 20036

Hosted by GWU’s Graduate School of Political Management (www.gspm.gwu.edu)

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>
/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

IPDI and GW’s Graduate School of Political Management (GSPM) are having a contest
to see who can predict the Electoral College number and spread
correctly. Everyone who guesses the prediction correctly will have a chance to win dinner at Charlie Palmer with Politico’s James Kotecki.

To play:

Go to GSPM’s Facebook page at http://www.new.facebook.com/pages/Washington-DC/The-Graduate-School-of-Political-Management/8908538354

Become a fan.

Click on “Predict November.”

Make your prediction.

Paste it back onto the GSPM wall by midnight on November 1, 2008

Are you one of those “know it alls” who thinks hey, I’ve been predicting the Electoral College spread since the 3rd grade! Piece of cake.

Well here is your chance to put your money where your mouth is.

IPDI and GW’s Graduate School of Political Management (GSPM) are having a contest
to see who can predict the Electoral College number and spread
correctly. Everyone who guesses the prediction correctly will have a chance to win dinner at Charlie Palmer with Politico’s James Kotecki.

To play:

Go to GSPM’s Facebook page.

Become a fan.

Click on “Predict November.”

Make your prediction.

Paste it back onto the GSPM wall.

Join the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet, Politicker.com, and GW’s Graduate School of Political Management for

The Race in the States

A reception and panel discussion about campaigns and public opinion in the battleground states.

How will our evolving, modern-day electoral map affect elections this year? Will voter registration efforts change the game? Which voters will most likely vote — and have the biggest effect on the election? What role do pollsters and bloggers play in monitoring (and possibly moving) public opinion this campaign season? How does humor persuade? A panel of bloggers, organizers, pollsters, and analysts discuss these questions and their predictions for Election Day 2008.

When: Wednesday, October 22nd 2008 from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.

Where: The National Press Club

529 14th St, NW

Washington, DC 20045

13th Floor, The Morrow, White, and Lisagor Rooms

Map: National Press Club

Metro: Metro Center (Red, Blue, and Orange Lines)

Registration requested. Register online.

Panelists:

Anna Greenberg, Senior Vice President of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner

Maren Hesla, EMILY’s List, director of the WOMEN VOTE! program

Dr. Michael McDonald, Associate Professor of Government and Politics in the Department of Public and International Affairs at George Mason University and a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution

James Pindell, Managing editor of Politicker.com and their sixteen state political news sites as well as the Pindell Report.

Phillip Stutts, President of Phillip Stutts & Company, LLC, a political and corporate consulting firm.

Rob Tornoe, Editorial cartoonist for Politicker.com, a national network of state-specific politics websites owned by the The Observer Media Group, which also publishes the New York Observer.

Moderators:

Matt Lewis, Conservative writer and commentator featured in Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN.

Margie Omero, President of Momentum Analysis, LLC, a Democratic public opinion research firm based in Washington, DC.

The 2008 Defending the American Dream Summit happened over the weekend at the Crystal City Marriott. Put on by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, the event looked to bring together conservatives from across the country for the second annual conference.

Part pep-rally, part substantive policy discussion, the summit highlighted some of the luminaries of the conservative movement. On Friday night at the Ronald Reagan Tribute Dinner, George Will
Dinesh D’Souza, U.S. Senator James Inhofe (OK), Edwin Meese III, and Dr. James C. Miller III spoke.

No matter your political persuasion, you can see this was a power packed night of political discourse. Each man gave a succinct analysis of the current situation in America and how Ronald Reagan would approach the current political challenges.

The crowd on Friday night ate up every word from the speakers and maintained their enthusiasm the entire dinner.

This type of gathering brought together conservatives of all stripes. Values voters, fair tax conservatives, environmental conservatives all gathered to exchange ideas and try to advance their collective cause. These type of conferences attract a diverse group of bloggers and traditional media.

Conferences like the Defending the American Dream Summit may be the future of political gatherings. Small targeted groups of people interested in a certain political persuasion, not necessarily a political party.

Overall it was a well attended and informative conference no matter your politics. Though the Republican Party is struggling nationally, conservative groups like Americans For Prosperity are trying to keep the Conservative American Dream alive.

The Mobile Future Coalition invites you to a luncheon discussion on How Mobile Technologies are Changing Elections

Tuesday, October 14

Noon

National Press Club

529 14th St NW, 13th Floor

Washington, DC

Please RSVP at

www.mobilefuture.org/elections

With more and more elected officials using text messaging to speak directly to voters and an increasing challenge for pollsters to reach the growing community of voters who have cut the cord, this Mobile Future forum will explore the significant role that mobile technologies play in the 2008 election.

One of the leading pollsters in the U.S., Peter Hart, Chairman of Peter D. Hart Research Associates, will give an update on the 2008 landscape and discuss how analysts collecting data for the 2008 elections are factoring in consumers who rely solely on their wireless phones.

The forum also includes a panel discussion moderated by Mobile Future Chairman Jonathan Spalter with representatives from some of the leading organizations and companies using these technologies today.

Panelists include:

Jed Alpert, CEO of Mobile Commons

Michelle Mayorga, Rock the Vote, Mobile Programs

Casey O’Shea, DCCC National Field Director

Katie Harbath, Former Deputy eCampaign Director, Giuliani for President

Mobile Future is a broad-based coalition of businesses, non-profit organizations and individuals interested in and dedicated to advocating for an environment in which innovations in wireless technology and services are enabled and encouraged. Our mission is to educate the public and key decision makers on innovations in the wireless industry that have transformed the way Americans work and play and to advocate continued investment in wireless technologies.

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>
/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

The Mobile Future Coalition invites you to a luncheon discussion on How Mobile Technologies are Changing Elections:

Tuesday, October 14

Noon

National Press Club

529 14th St NW, 13th Floor

Washington, DC

Please RSVP at

www.mobilefuture.org/elections

With more and more elected officials using text messaging to speak directly to voters and an increasing challenge for pollsters to reach the growing community of voters who have cut the cord, this Mobile Future forum will explore the significant role that mobile technologies play in the 2008 election.

One of the leading pollsters in the U.S., Peter Hart, Chairman of Peter D. Hart Research Associates, will give an update on the 2008 landscape and discuss how analysts collecting data for the 2008 elections are factoring in consumers who rely solely on their wireless phones.

The forum also includes a panel discussion moderated by Mobile Future Chairman Jonathan Spalter with representatives from some of the leading organizations and companies using these technologies today.

Panelists include:

Jed Alpert, CEO of Mobile Commons

Michelle Mayorga, Rock the Vote, Mobile Programs

Casey O’Shea, DCCC National Field Director

Katie Harbath, Former Deputy eCampaign Director, Giuliani for President

Mobile Future is a broad-based coalition of businesses, non-profit organizations and individuals interested in and dedicated to advocating for an environment in which innovations in wireless technology and services are enabled and encouraged. Our mission is to educate the public and key decision makers on innovations in the wireless industry that have transformed the way Americans work and play and to advocate continued investment in wireless technologies.

The IPDI Ideas Series presents

A discussion with Rafael Rubio about technology and the 2008 Spanish General Election

Join IPDI and author, consultant, and visiting professor Rafael Rubio for a discussion about the 2008 General Election in Spain. How did the campaigns use technology to persuade and mobilize voters? What trends in online politics exist across geographical boundaries? How do electoral uses of the technology differ between Spain and the United States? This discussion is strictly limited to people who RSVP to julie@ipdi.org in order to encourage as much discussion as possible with the author.

Wednesday, October 15

4:00 - 5:30pm

GSPM Library

GWU’s Media and Public Affairs Building

805 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20052

RSVP REQUIRED to julie@ipdi.org

About Rafael Rubio

Rafael Rubio (PhD, Law) is a Senior Lecturer of Constitutional Law at the Universidad Complutense of Madrid, where he leads a research group on civil society, new technologies and democracy. At Universidad Carlos III, Universidad Pontificia de Comillas, Universidad de Navarra and the Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset, he teaches classes on politics, new media and grassroots politics in post graduate programs in Political Studies and Communications. He has lectured in various universities in Guatemala, Cuba, Colombia and México.

He is the editor of a blog about politics and new technology (ethepeople.blogspot.com), contributing editor of Politicsonline and is a frequent contributor to the online newspaper libertad digital (www.libertaddigital.com), and the Popular TV news. He is the author of several books and has published work in several anthologies. As a political consultant, (www.dogcomunicacion.com) he specializes in the application of Internet to elections and in immigrant voting. He is also a consultant for the Madrid Region Immigrant Department and has participated in several political electoral campaigns in Spain.

He has worked as a Visiting Scholar at both Georgetown and Harvard University and currently he works as a visiting scholar at George Washington University. His areas of research include new forms of political participation and the Internet in democracy, especially in participatory processes (such as elections and strengthening civil society). He has published more than twenty articles on these subjects.

Currently he serves as the President of Asociación Española Cuba en Transición (www.cubaentransicion.com) and has worked for various charitable projects with the Missionaries of Charity (Mother Theresa of Calcuta) in Spain, Cambodia, Cuba, Ethiopía, Portugal, Poland, Guatemala and México. Currently he serves as the webmaster of colaboradores.org, a community webpage for volunteering and is working in a new social network for volunteers, helprevolution.

About the IPDI Ideas Series book discussions

The Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet (IPDI) is part of the Graduate School of Political Management at The George Washington University. Our mission is to promote the use of the Internet and new communication technologies in politics to enhance democratic values, encourage citizen participation and improve governance, at home and abroad; in short, to “democratize democracy.”

IPDI presents a series of regular, discussion-based events that explore technology policy and emerging issues in the technology and political spheres. Previous events in the IPDI Ideas Series looked at broadband policy and discussions about new research. Each event is designed to provide an forum for conversations about the ways in which technology affects politics – and vice versa – that are accessible both online and offline. This includes brown bag lunch conversations with authors, bloggers, and journalists about major themes in the politics and technology space.

Next week, IPDI and its department at GWU, the Graduate School of Political Management, are releasing the inaugural issue of our monthly Polity & Pragmatics survey panel.  The first edition asks our panel of faculty and Council on American Politics members if conventions have outlived their usefulness. Here’s a advance look at what we will publish next week.

POLITY & PRAGMATICS

September 2008

Each month, GW’s Graduate School of Political Management (GSPM) surveys the members of its Polity and Pragmatics panel for their opinions about major issues and trends in politicking, policy, communications, and public relations.

The September 2008 Polity & Pragmatics survey tackles the role party conventions play in the American political process – now and in the future.

Have conventions outlived their usefulness?

Yes 33.3%

No 61.1%

Not yet, but they will in the future 5.6%

“Yes. Power is more diversified. It’s no longer just in the hands of a few party brokers.”

Nancy Bocskor, The Nancy Bocskor Company and Professor, Graduate School of Political Management

“Not yet, but they will in the future. All issues are basically decided before the delegates get there. Technology is now able to permit the delegates to transact any business that needs to be done without the expense of a convention. The event is a PR plus for the candidates so until that can be replaced it will stay.”

Tony Coelho, Former Congressman and Former Co-Chairman, Council on American Politics.

“No. The purpose of the national conventions has evolved with the times and will continue to do so. They have become over the past thirty years infomercials for the parties featuring celebrities, music, a few speeches, and lots of color. The rise of the Internet will make the Conventions relevant in ways we don’t yet imagine. But they will not go away.”

Greg Lebel, Director, GW Semester in Washington Politics Program

Is the trend of conventions outliving their usefulness a good thing or a bad thing?[1]

Good 60%

Bad 40%

“Good. Like other ‘good in their times’ but now obsolete items – typewriters for example — conventions should be replaced by new forms of electronic communication and interaction. Computers are far better than typewriters and today’s e-technology is much better than conventions. Witness how Obama plans to announce his VP selection.”

W. Dennis Thomas, Sr. Vice President, International Paper, Inc. and Member, Council on American Politics

“Bad. The conventions ought to be an opportunity for citizens to interact with other citizens from around the country to discuss politics.”

Julius W. Hobson, Senior Policy Advisor, Powell Goldstein LLP and Professor, Graduate School of Political Management

“Good. Let the campaigns talk to the voters in the increasingly targeted, deliberate, and innovative ways they do best. Prime time speeches to the faithful (in the arena/round) AND to the few and far between who may be watching is so 1960s. Be done with it, already.”

Shayna Englin, Principal, Englin Consulting, LLC and Professor, Graduate School of Political Management

Will there be a national primary in the next ten years?

Yes 12.5%

No 87.5%

“No, for several reasons: 1) The states guard their moment in the spotlight too jealously. 2) There are too many state and local officials involved in running elections who would lose jobs to national coordinators if that occurred. More likely we will see regional primaries (e.g., South, Northeast, etc.), organized on a state-by-state basis, but held on the same day. This would reduce the number of primaries, eliminate the ridiculously long and expensive campaigns we run now, and allow the candidates to consolidate their forces where they are strongest.”

Elliot Roseman, Vice President, ICF International and Professor, Graduate School of Political Management

“Yes, And I think it will be online.”

Nancy Bocskor, The Nancy Bocskor Company and Professor, Graduate School of Political Management

“No. The inter-state differences are as profound as the intra-state differences. The parties raise money, provide educational forums on how best to run for office, gather and store essential information for micro-targeting, and supply warm bodies to help organize - all useful functions. As someone smarter than I once said: ‘The two U.S. national parties are like two bottles with the same label - and both empty.’ Only the idealogues have been fooled by thinking either party has a role to play in advancing their ideas.”

Edward A. Grefe, Professor, Graduate School of Political Management

How much money will be necessary to win the party’s nomination in 2012?

$500 million to $750 million 40%

$750 million to $999 million 20%

$1 billion to $1.49 billion 26.7%

$1.5 billion to $2 billion 6.7%

More than $2 billion 6.7%

Is there an alternative to public financing?

Yes 68.8%

No 31.3%

“Yes. The status quo! The country is $10 trillion in debt – hard to put funding elections ahead of other national priorities.”

Laurence F. Lane, VP of Government Relations, Genesis HealthCare and Member, Council on American Politics

“Yes. Private financing.”

Robert Dove, Professor, George Washington University

“No. Only through a level playing field will candidates of sincere leadership abilities be willing to step forward. Currently those who are most qualified to lead opt out of the system since effective leadership requires balance and our presidential election process is the furthest thing from it!”

Kathleen Schafer, Principal, Leadership Connection and Professor, Graduate School of Political Management

“Yes. Continuing to raise money through private sources. Better disclosure and fewer abstruse restrictions would vastly improve the system.”

Rick White, Principal, The Woodbay Group and Member, Council on American Politics

“Maybe. I don’t believe that the American public can be sold on public financing at this point in time. The alternative is sunshine. Lots and lots of sunshine. Political contributions of any amount must be a matter of public record in a timely, complete, and accessible manner. This must include contributions to any independent group that seeks to affect the outcome of an election (a phrase that must be very specifically and carefully defined. It seems to me that with the right to free speech comes the responsibility to claim one’s voice. Anonymous infusions of cash into election messages do not meet that standard. Technological advances make speed, accuracy, and accessibility attainable goals. However, lack of political will continues to be the stumbling block to achieving this level of accountability.”

Greg Lebel, Director, GW Semester in Washington Politics Program

“Yes. The Obama model. Republicans will master it by 2012.”

Bill Black, Co-Chair, Fleishman Hillard Global Public Affairs Practice and Professor, Graduate School of Political Management

___________________________

The Graduate School of Political Management (GSPM, www.gspm.gwu.edu) seeks to make politics better by educating its students and professionals in the tools, principles and values of participatory democracy, preparing them for careers as ethical and effective advocates and leaders at the international, national and local levels. Its Polity & Pragmatics survey panel consists of faculty and members of its Council on American Politics.

Polity & Pragmatics takes its title from the Greek terms for city and citizenship. This ancient legacy of political participation, coupled with the GSPM’s pragmatic approach to politics and emphasis on effective communication reflect on GSPM’s values as a graduate institution and the panel members’ experiences in and visions for politics in the United States.

The Graduate School of Political Management

The George Washington University

805 21st Street, NW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20052

(202) 994-6000 • www.gspm.gwu.edu • gspminfo@gwu.edu

[1] Asked of those respondents who answered “Yes” to the question, “Have conventions outlived their usefulness?”