But in reality, the Defense Department’s new social/new media policy is a tiny nine pages long and is incredibly straight forward.  The document demonstrates the DoD is encouraging its three million employees to use social media (safely and responsibly) either on or off duty, or at home or abroad.

To the DoD’s credit, this massive organization gets it.  Media is everywhere.  Access to social network sites is ubiquitous.  Millions of young men and women with smart phones is just too much to control.  And so the Department responded wisely by understanding what I think is the basic principle of any good organization – the best advocates are an entity’s employees.  Yes, more than their customers.  That’s because good organizations make their workplace enjoyable and rewarding.  Employees spread those good feelings to stakeholders outside the organization.

Going back to the Defense Department, if we stop to think of the organizational culture, we probably can begin to realize that this institution is full of dedicated, focused and loyal men and women.  The U.S. government should be facilitating its people to communicate via social/new media.  These employees can be the Defense Department’s best advocates.

And that is the lesson for public affairs organizations of any type or size.  The best capital we have is our people.  Happy, dedicated and loyal employees will make the best advocates.  Instead of walling them in, let them go out and be ambassadors.

For political communications, Facebook and then later Twitter, have become important tools in both national and local electoral politics.  These social media sites allow for deeper engagement between campaigns and their supporters, enables increasingly scaled multi-way conversations and are excellent organizing tools.

How will Google Buzz fit in to this mix of social media sites already running and how will Buzz be integrated into political communications?

The buzz about Buzz going around blogosphere is now centered around the lack of sensitivity to Google and Gmail users’ privacy concerns.  Google may have made a huge mistake when it automatically brought users into one’s Buzz network without their permission.  Internet privacy advocates are having a field day with this.  But as with most everything Google, the company is listening and trying to correct its errors.

As a social network, I see the biggest advantage of Google Buzz being its integration into other Google software.  For example, in the last year, I have gotten away from my activity on Facebook and have moved much more heavily into email.  It’s not so much a conscious decision on my part, but simply a reaction to the amount of emails I receive daily necessitates my attention get paid to my inbox.  Therefore, having the Buzz tab next to my Gmail inbox is highly convenient.  Not to mention, Buzz syncs up with YouTube, Flickr, Twitter, Google Reader, Google Chat, etc. very seamlessly.  On top of that, Buzz seems to be a pretty clean and easy designed app.

Google Buzz’s downside may be that it’s too connected to one’s email.  I think many Facebook users like the idea of having a personal network on Facebook unconnected to their email.  I can understand that.

As a political tool, we shall see how Google Buzz gets used and if campaigns will utilize it in the 2010 cycle.  I think it will provide a new way to bring in a lot of engagement to a campaign and communicate in a new and possibly easier fashion.  As someone who works on campaigns, the thought of having email and social networking contained in one interface is very attractive.  In fact, I would venture to say at the moment that Google Buzz stands to assist campaigns to communicate with key activists and volunteers in a deeper and more personal way.

For example, beyond non-Google web apps, I see a lot of value in being able to have Google Docs and Google Calendar be a part of Google Buzz and at the fingertips of campaigns and volunteers in a single medium.  That could prove very valuable.  I, for one, would be willing to give it a try.  I believe it will aid in multi-way communication better than Facebook at this point as Facebook has become another broadcasting tool for campaigns.  If the privacy issue can be resolved and users of Google Buzz can have better control of who is able to tap into a given network, Buzz can be a very useful tool.

By now, we’re all familiar with the Hynes’ Campaign ad showing Harold Washington discuss his regret hiring Pat Quinn in the 1980′s, pointing to Quinn’s incompetence.

The message was pretty hard to argue with – coming straight from Democratic and progressive icon Harold Washington’s mouth that Pat Quinn is unqualified to handle budgetary matters.  At first, it helped to bring Hynes up in the polls with Quinn.

But then something remarkable happened.  To the Quinn campaign’s credit, the Governor was able to turn the Washington ad into an issue of race and M achine politics where Dan Hynes and the Hynes family stood on the wrong side of that debate.  This was a good and pretty predictable response from the Quinn camp.

The Hynes response to this was deeply flawed.  Hynes could have distanced himself from the Quinn attacks, stating his father’s politics was ancient history and that his father was not running against Pat Quinn.  He could have voiced disagreement with the race wars of the 1980′s and Tom Hynes’ role.

Instead, Hynes fell off message, defending his father and allowing Quinn to shift the conversation that previously focused on job performance to a much more emotionally-charged issue of race.  There was no doubt that Quinn worked for progressive candidates and causes and he was able to use the Hynes attack to his advantage to demonstrate solidarity with minorities and middle class voters.  The message completely escaped Hynes.

The timing of course was critical.  This all took place a few weeks before Election Day.  Leading in to this period, a candidate wants to be focused on their message.  The Hynes defensiveness was very costly communications hiccup.

Now that the election is over, I would like to get back to blogging regularly.

If there’s one major observation I took away from from this election, it’s that voter apathy has an ironic way of self-defeat.

For instance, we commonly heard throughout the course of this election how fed up people were with politics in Illinois and our political leadership.  This led to cynicism about the system in general and a feeling that all politicians are corruptible and on the take.

The irony is of course that this attitude leads people to refrain from voting and therefore gives the Democratic Machine a free pass to win elections.

Off the top of my head, look at all the good government, reform candidates who lost in 2010 primaries:

• David Hoffman lost to Alexi Giannoulias
• Jonathan Goldman lost Anazette Collins
• Rudy Lozano Jr. lost to Dan Burke
• Stella Black and Todd Connor lost to three Machine-backed candidates for Water Rec
• Monica Torres-Linares lost to Jerry “Iceman” Butler
• David Schroeder lost to Ken Dunkin

And the list goes on…

The point here is that voters who want good government, who want reform, who want honest people in elected office – only hurt themselves when they stay away from the voting booth.

We had a historic low turnout this election.  All that does is ensure the majority of those who show up are Machine supporters.

Good candidates can’t get elected when turnout is so low.

This is a fallacy in Chicagoland’s political culture that has to be changed.  We face huge problems – mounting debt, failing public transportation, failing schools, corruption, etc.  Change won’t happen when we throw our hands up and allow those who seek to protect the political status quo to walk away with elections.

It won’t take much on our end – just a commitment to learn about candidates and to cast our votes.

From a new media perspective, Hoffman’s campaign is so interesting because I have not seen a federal campaign literally ask voters to contact their offices, promising a real person will return their email or phone call.  Many campaigns pay lip service to “two-way” communications.  Many of these tools are just c0-opted to broadcast messages, unfortunately.

Then there’s the commitment to new media.  That signals the Hoffman campaign is interested in finding and working with online grassroots advocates who will be the campaign’s evangelists.  The online community is commonly the group who starts the buzz and sets the agenda far in advance.  That plan seems to be on solid footing in Illinois too, though it may not take off because for an online community, Illinois is relatively small.  Then again, for a primary a campaign is really speaking to the ardent party supporters.

All of these aforementioned “principles” are setting up the Hoffman brand, it’s promise, that it has nothing to hide.  The email was an invitation for people to come in, sniff around and if you like what you see, then support Hoffman.  It’s a really great effort so far to ensure the campaign is “walking the talk” of its reform and anti-corruption agenda.

Here’s the email:

Dear Valued Constituent:

Now that we have a full campaign team up and running, I wanted to introduce myself, kick off some guidelines for our communications, and give you a look at the fight ahead.

I’m Dan O’Neil, the Director of New Media for Hoffman for Illinois. I’m responsible for the online team, which includes our Web site, email communications, social networking sites, and all other online outreach. I’m aided by Mike Hardy, our Online Content Director, and Lara Sanders, our Director of Online Organizing.

You may have already heard from Lara over the last week. She has been contacting volunteers who have raised their hands and offered to help us turn the page on politics as usual in Illinois. She is also working through all emails sent to the campaign with specific suggestions for events, fundraisers, and other offers and requests. If you haven’t heard from Lara yet, expect to hear from her in the next few days. You can contact her directly at (312) 772-3539 or lara@hoffmanforillinois.com.

A Few Guidelines

We’re running a different campaign for a different candidate.

• We’d like this to be a two-way conversation. If you get a blast email, and would like to respond to us personally, by all means do! Let us know what you think about what we had to say, whether we’re contacting you too much or too little,or anything else
• Our emails are written by real people, and we sign them as our own. You won’t get an email written by a campaign staffer that says it’s from David. You won’t get template pleas written by campaign finance professionals. If we’re going to do this (and we are), we’re going to do it together, and with honesty
• Please feel free to forward on these emails, blog about their content, and tell your friends and family what we have to say
• A good amount of our communication is via Twitter and Facebook. We like it, because it cuts down on inbox clutter, allows you to have greater control over how you get our messages, and keeps us in the context of the rest of your daily life

David on the Issues

Many of you have expressed a need to hear more from David on the issues that matter to you most. While we are getting ready to announce our formal policies on our Web site, David has already spoken out on a number of them:

• Monday morning, Eric Zorn published a post about David’s stance on gay marriage (in favor)
• Last week, David sat down with Carol Marin on Chicago Tonight t o talk about the Wall Street bailout (stronger regulation needed) and the public option for health care legislation (in favor)
• Also last week, David spoke about the Wall Street bailout on the Don Wade & Roma Morning Show on WLS

September 30 Filing Deadline

An important milestone in the campaign is the Federal Election Commission financial reporting deadline of September 30. We need to have a strong showing on that day to prove that we will have the support we need to win in February and beyond. David is a strong candidate, and is capable of beating back the Republican challenge for President Obama’s former Senate seat.

We accept no PAC money or contributions from State or Federal lobbyists, so please consider pledging your support for our campaign.

We’re now less than four and a half months until the Democratic Primary Election on February 2, 2010. There’s a lot of work to do. We are fully
engaged in this battle now, and we’re certain that together, we’ll win.

Best,

Dan

Daniel X. O’Neil
Director of New Media
Hoffman for Illinois
www.hoffmanforillinois.com

I’ve been active in progressive politics, issue campaigns and elections my whole career.  Never have I been faced with a more complex challenge than my current job: managing a judicial candidate’s primary campaign. But like most voters, I didn’t know the first thing about judge races.  All I knew was that these races were confusing.  What’s the difference between county-wide races and subcircuit races? The “Yes” vs. “No” votes?  Why are judges elected anyway?

The confusion aside, one thing I believed before I became a judicial candidate’s campaign manager and now believe even stronger, is that our judiciary is a critical part of our democracy.  And just as we voters exercise our responsibility to hold our elected officials accountable and put the best person in the job, we need to do the same for Cook County’s judiciary.

I’ll try to clarify some things about judicial races.  About half our judges in Cook County are appointed and half are elected.  The appointed judges are appointed by sitting judges…

To read the complete article, click here.

Last night at the Loyola Fieldhouse on Sheridan and Greenleaf, the 49th Ward Democrats turned out in a huge way to support elected officials pushing for the public option in America’s quest for healthcare reform.  The un-airconditioned room was packed, with people sweating and bearing the heat to hear from Dr. Anne Scheetz, William McNary, Congressman Danny Davis and Leslie Combs of Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky’s office.  Not only did people not leave the hot room, but the crowd responded very enthusiastically to the speakers calling for healthcare reform.

Dr. Scheetz gave an impassioned presentation for single payer healthcare.  Her knowledge of the issue was really impressive and she received a rousing ovation from the audience.

Bill McNary, President of USAction and always a great speaker, followed Scheetz.  Among the highlights he offered were to check out healthcarforamericanow.org and sign on to the following principles:

1. People should have affordable coverage
2. Healthcare reform needs to offer comprehensive benefits
3. People need equal access to quality care

McNary really ramped up the crowd when he compared the struggle for healthcare reform to struggle for social security, medicare and civil rights in previous generations.  He offered the ingredients to win the healthcare reform battle is: unity, discipline and passion.

Congressman Danny Davis spoke last, noting that he is a co-signer and longtime advocate of single payer healthcare reform.  He had hoped that Congress would be on the verge of passing meaningful healthcare reform at this time.  However, politics, Davis described, is “how you squeeze as much as you can get out of a process.”

Davis said he would not sign any bill that did not include a strong public option.  He said that insurance executives should be ashamed to take a paycheck knowing there are those people out there with no access and no option to get healthcare.  (The top guy at Cigna for example took home $12m last year.)

He talked about the opposition to a public option from the Right, calling it  a contrived, organized effort meant to scare people.  He concluded with the call for healthcare reform to be the legacy of this generation.

FYI, Jan Schakowsky is holding a townhall meeting coming up on August 31 at 6:30 PM at Niles West High School in Skokie.  Make sure to get there early to ensure the fear mongerers do not make headlines.

However, the notion that there is this massive and universal backlash against healthcare reform is hardly true.  Of course it is a contentious debate, but the reality is that three of the House committees charged with creating healthcare reform legislation have seemed to reach written legislation, respectively.  And in the Senate, one of two committees charged with concocting healthcare reform legislation have concluded.

The Right is making a lot of noise and usually extreme elements get covered in the media.  But, like with the Tea Party movement meant to thwart President Obama’s stimulus package, the healthcare disruptions will end up being a minor distraction. I believe Americans do think the unruly and overly-aggressive tactics will be dismissed eventually as trying to stifle debate, while unconstructively trying to kill needed healthcare reforms.

The White House communications team responded this week with a page out of President Obama’s campaign playbook.  If you recall, lots of rumors by the Right tried to damage Obama’s reputation – ideas like he is a Muslim or that he was not an American citizen.  Obama responded with a sort of myth & fact website complete with text and video.  It helped not only correct the record and debunk rumors, but it also gave activists a tool to make the case to their networks.

Now, through whitehouse.gov/realitycheck, the White House is refocusing its efforts to speak directly to people – hoping traditional media and bloggers/facebookers/tweets direct people to the site.  It’s a great online communications effort.  The website is well-designed, which is actually hard to do on this issue because there is so much information and disinformation regarding this debate, that people can easily be overwhelmed.  But, the White House’s site lets video do most of the talking, which is an effective medium for getting the message across.  It also has an FAQ page, a Q&A on consumer protections and a page for users to submit questions.  I will try submitting something and see if I get a response.

The one critique I have is on video shareability.  The site features all these great testimonials on healthcare from experts on the President’s team, but there is no place to grab a link and place in on my blog or website.  That’s could be a very effective tool in spreading the White House’s message that can be utilized.

My prediction – the media focus on healthcare reform opposition will dissipate and rationality about passing healthcare reform will return.

First off, nobody was happier at the end of the meeting than Jeff Smith.  Smith is an Evanston attorney and longtime good government advocate who is running for state representative in the 18th District.  He was unanimously endorsed by DFA, making him the first candidate to receive the organization’s endorsement for 2010 races.

After having Toni Preckwinkle speak to the organization two months ago, two elected officials with big name recognition came to speak to the Northside DFA.  Cook County Commissioner Larry Suffredin and Congressman Danny Davis have both declined to officially announce their candidacy for Cook County Board President, as Toni Preckwinkle has, yet each man said they were definitely in the race at the DFA meeting.

Suffredin spoke first, bringing talking points up with him as he, from the outset, seemed extraordinarily careful about his message.  Oddly enough, he started with defending his vote for supporting the 1 percent Cook County sales tax hike last year that has been wildly unpopular.  Suffredin explained he gave Todd Stroger his vote for the tax hike primarily in a trade for establishing an independent board of health to oversee Cook County Hospital, and because Cook County’s finances were so badly mismanaged that the tax hike was necessary to get the County’s house back in order.  Suffredin deflected the impact of the sales hike on Cook County, arguing that the collar counties are hurting for revenue as well.  In other words, Suffredin suggested that the flight of Cook County consumer spending going to collar counties to save on higher taxes simply was not happening.

Suffredin commended the impact of the independent health board’s impact on the overall Cook County health system, claiming that the board has turned around its finances to benefit of $250 million.

I won’t speak for Northside DFA members, but I certainly was asking myself if Suffredin’s vote was really necessary to establish the independent health board.  After all, reformers Mike Quigley and Forrest Claypool rejected the tax increase.  It is hard to accept Suffredin’s argument that he is with the Quigleys and the Claypools when it comes to reform but also vote for the Stroger tax hike.

Clearly, Suffredin knows Cook County issues very well.  But, I felt as though he was grasping and defending himself because he knew the vote for increased taxes was a mistake.  He’s now voting for its repeal.

Danny Davis came and spoke next, using a much different tone.  He projected leadership, experience and confidence.  And while the local media is saying Davis will not run for Cook County Board President, Davis told Northside DFA that he is.

Davis presented the case that he’s worked his whole life representing progressive issues and wants to focus his Cook County Board President candidacy on healthcare, fixing the judicial/correctional system and reforming taxes.  He didn’t say how he would approach any of these issue in specifics but his argument about his experience as a Chicago alderman, Cook County commissioner and Congressman sure sounded convincing.  Interestingly, he did say that his strong suit was inspiring and motivating people and that he felt Cook County needed that type of leadership if it were to reform.

The last word here was something that Suffredin said in response to a question about waiting to declare if he was running.  Suffredin flat out said that his strategy for not declaring is rooted in getting media attention.  Simply, the longer he waited, the more the media would speculate and give him ink.  Seems like it’s working.

The safe bet would be to assume the seat will go Democratic.  Two contenders with name recognition and a history have already signaled that they will run: Dan Seals and Julie Hamos.

It will be every interesting to see how each candidate goes about building a campaign for the 10th Congressional seat.  Hamos, the State Rep from Evanston, has been working towards a state-wide run until Lisa Madigan announced she would not vacate her Attorney General seat.  Hamos is looking to turn that disappointment into a victory in the Democratic primary.

Hamos has some built-in advantages for her in the 10th District.  She’s already known in the area from her years as State Rep in Evanston (outside of the 10th District).  She will have unprecedented support from elected officials (especially Jan Schakowsky next door in the 9th), who wants a woman and a progressive in that seat long-held by a Republican.   Hamos has also built up plenty of good-will in the district as the area served as a fundraising hub for her state-wide race.  I believe she has a lot of sympathetic supporters who feel that Lisa Madigan thwarted Hamos’ chances at higher office and now will support Hamos in the Congressional bid.

Seals, I think, faces a really uphill battle.  He does have the advantages when he ran for the seat during the last two election cycles.  He knows the district really well and undoubtedly brings lessons learned and insights to this campaign after losing two previous ones.  But, he won’t have the backing he did when he was an unknown taking on Kirk in 2006 and again in 2008.  From what I’ve heard, many residents in the 10th are hoping that Seals will not run, to open the door for new blood.  That would be Seals’ death knell.  He cannot count on the political kingmakers to bless his run this time around.  He will need an even stronger grassroots campaign than he has had previously.  Can he do it?

I think if he does run a better grassroots campaign, he can beat Hamos in a very tough battle.  But looking at today’s events after Seals announced his candidacy via email, a look at his Facebook page has no announcement to about 500 supporters across several pages that he is running for Congress.  That built-in network will be absolutely key to Seals’ support in the 10th and beyond.  He needs that to be successful.  He cannot rely on the Democratic organizations handing him supporters like they did in previous elections.  Facebook is the start of grassroots outreach, and it’s a good bell-weather of a campaign at a given moment.

Hamos, meanwhile, has to do a good job of channeling her support and momentum from the statewide run into continung to give supporters a piece of the campaign.  The Hamos team has done a great job at that so far.  It has been interesting to see the media speculate about Hamos’ political future plans and the campaign make no announcement or outreach to her supporters (even to tell them to sit tight) since Madigan announcemed she isn’t’ running over a week ago.