Israel Hurting Herself During Obama’s First Mideast Speech

Reading the Israeli dailies on the eve of President Obama’s policy speech at Cairo Univeristy, I was shocked and saddened at the extremism – and tolerance of that extremism – by the right wing in Israeli society.

Posters are being placed around the country depicting Obama wearing a kaffiyeh and shaking hands with Iranian President Ahmadinejad (allowing Iran to build nuclear weapons).  Furthermore, these posters and the official reactions given to the press by these right wing leaders after Obama’s speech consistently call the American president “Hussein,” suggesting that his Muslim middle name reveals Obama’s “true identity” and favoritism of the Arab world over Israel.

I could talk about how ridiculous these communications are and how President Obama is actually very pro-Israel and committed to Israel’s security and peace prospects more than his predecessor, but instead I am saddened.  I am saddened because I am a strong supporter of Israel, her people and her chances for peace.  I am saddened because the way in which Obama is being depicted in Israel shows an ignorant, extremist and immature view of Israel’s leadership.

The sentiment directed towards President Obama gives exceptional insight into the Israeli mentality.  Attacking Obama for being pro-Arab demonstrates an extreme lack of confidence and weakness on behalf of Israelis.  Instead of giving this president a chance to work with Israel, they are quickly retreating to a circle the wagons strategy.  It’s almost as if Israel still believes the Jewish people are living as guests in other countries instead of their own, where they have defended themselves against warring enemies for six decades successfully.  While the rest of the world sees Israel as the most powerful country in the Middle East who holds the majority of cards for diplomatic and military initiatives, Israel’s right-wing still sees itself as weak and threatened whose imminent demise is only moments away.

Furthermore, and most troubling, Israel’s right wing has shown a disgusting double standard.  Jews around the world have fought against anti-Semitism and bigotry seemingly forever.  They have achieved such gains in defeating widespread anti-Semitism and achieving tolerance, which makes Obama’s depiction as wearing a kaffiyeh and calling him Hussein even more disgusting.  What can be more intolerant and prejudiced than that?  What if Obama was depicted with a kipah, a beard and sidelocks?  Wouldn’t the Jewish people be calling that anti-Semitism?  I think so.

If there’s one thing the Israeli right has done well, is testing the limits of free speech.  Now they’ve done it too well.  They are becoming so extreme and dominating Israel’s political conversation that it will no doubt hurt the country and damage any government’s ability to govern.  I hope, for Israel’s sake, that these element of society can look itself in the face and see/hear itself for what it is actually saying.

How to Manage the Netroots Relationship as President-Elect

I found over the course of the last two weeks that the Obama emails have slowed to a trickle.  After his election victory, there certainly has not been a lack of news to report or reason to let his carefully constructed netroots go by the wayside.

In many ways, this period as president-elect is vital for Obama to live up to the promise that change on the way – that the way elected officials, yes even presidents, communicate with their grassroots will be conducted with greater transparency.

Justin Boland writing for the html times provides a great analysis of the way Obama used his netroots with on-the-ground strategy to carry him to victory.  Even more, Boland suggests that the same information sharing and organzing Obama supporters did on behalf of their candidate has to continue in a constructive manner if the campaign promises Obama made are to be lived up to.

So far, this hasn’t happened.  Case in point, the emails we all receive from David Plouffe have been a day late and a dollar short.  It’s almost as if the very online communications tactics that were used so effectively during the campaign have been forgotten.

The office of the president-elect could have tipped off his netroots supporters during the passed two weeks of Obama’s cabinet selections and economic team.  Fact sheets, like those created during the campaign, could have been compiled to make the case to his supporters and then used by his supporters to make the case to their own social networks.  This hasn’t happened and it worries me that the great promise of Obama’s online communications strategies will not be realized now that he is elected.

In this disappointment, there is a huge opportunity for Obama’s supporters to communicate back to their leadership and demand the same sort of transparency that existed in the campaign continue into the White House.  Boland points to online public affairs successes like OpenSecrets and Visualizing Earmarks as models by the public to keep elected officials in check.  That same sort organizing must continue.  Hopefully, it will also wake up the transition team to again communicate the strategies and policies of the Obama office.

Memo to Obama Transition Team: Take Politics 2.0 into the Whitehouse

The blogosphere is buzzing with speculation and suggestions for President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team to take its netroots into the White House.  Many who see social media as increasing democracy and participation in public affairs are afraid that the Obama victory will be the ironic end to political opennes his campaign helped build.

Joe Flood, writing for e-politics, gives an apt description of the regulations restricting government 2.0 taking place.  He lists the following challenges for social media’s place in the White House:

1. Limited use of cookies
2. Bans on PHP
3. Bans on certain operating systems.
4. Firewalls

Thank you, Joe for laying out the legal and cultural challenges laying ahead for the Obama administration.

Brian Solis, writing for Techcrunch, makes the argument for an Obama administration to carry on social media practices in the White House and supplies some suggestions for making this a success.  Brian calls this the “two way street” where “people shouldn’t only have a voice during an election time; listening and responding should be an ongoing practice and process of any office.”

Some suggestions Brian provides:

1. Presidential address on YouTube
2. Creating a social network, Change.gov
3. Complimenting weekly radio addresses on BlogTalkRadio

I recommend reading the full post to see all of Brian’s suggestions.

In short, the Obama presidency provides an amazing opportunity to make politics 2.0 a priority in governing, not just campaigning.  The Obama campaign set up a wonderful promise of giving people access to his campaign, message and inspiring the netroots to take action on his behalf.  If that does not continue, there will be a tremendous backlash against the Obama team – and a return to political disillusionment for many – if Obama defaults on his promise of change.  In short, the culture of openness and transparency must continue in the White House.  This change governing cultured enabled by the social web is the new one of Obama’s greatest promises.

Web 2.0 in the White House?

I’ve been feeling the chorus rise on the subject of whether a President Obama would follow through on his promise to institute a Chief Technology  Officer at the cabinet level and who that person might be.

But the bigger question surrounds the fate this massive online social movement Obama has created.

His campaign has demonstrated the power of social media by involving so many people in the political process an undeniable legacy.  The real litmus test of this legacy though is whether his netroots will die at the end of this campaign,  or if it will live on through a cabinet level post or by other means.

I think the latter will occur.  But, a LOT of questions remain unanswered.  Questions such as:

• What will be the CTO’s role in the White House?
• Can a CTO make the White House more transparent?
• How much access will a CTO and the department give to the electorate?
  

  Image Credit: Ben Zvan

David Lazer of the Institute for Quantitative Social Science and the Program on Networked Governance, asks the right questions.  I highly recommend that people read his blog post for an insightful and brief analysis of how the powerful netroots movement Obama has created a lot of questions that loom the day after the election.

David writes:

The potential impact on our democracy is both thrilling and troubling. On the thrilling side is the potential for a long standing increase in the engagement of people in politics– most notably, among the youngest voters, who have always been the least engaged. On the troubling side is the potential disintermediation of our (small r) republican institutions.

Essentially, Obama has used online social networks, as I’ve argued, to set the promise that peoples’ voices, dollars and energies are heard and make a difference.  So far, that promise has been kept.  The rewards have been manifold, least of which is the record-breaking September fundraising numbers.

But what happens, as David Lazer rightly points out, if in the White House Obama is not able to direct the energies and actions of this great network he has built?  It very well could result in widespread disillusionment amongst new voters and young voters.

Clearly, Obama has built a movement.  Let’s hope that he and his campaign understand and appreciate that this movement must live beyond this election – win or lose – for Obama’s legacy on American political life to be positive.

The question remains: How will Obama engage his network after Nov. 4th and will that network be engaged enought for them to be satisfied?

Predicting the 2008 Election through Online WOM

The folks at WOM agency MotiveQuest are on to a very interesting experiment.  They’re using their proprietary online promoter score that measures online conversation to predict the the 2008 Presidential Election outcome.

From a purely branding perspective, this is a great way for MotiveQuest to “walk the walk.”  Through their BrandAdvocacy08 website, MotiveQuest will prove to the world that their methodology works and can even predict such major events as the election’s winner. 

In terms of the public affairs, measuring online WOM is something that electeds, candidates and organizations should be doing.  There’s a lot of conversation happening out there pertaining to people and issues.  Organizations first must understand the conversation and listen to what’s happening.  Next, they have to find the right way to get involved.

If anything, Obama’s campaign has spurred WOM from his supporters and has built a solid community around his candidacy.  For McCain, his WOM never took off and there hasn’t been a real community to coalesce around him.  I think McCain will look back in a couple of years and resent the different directions his campaign people pushed him to go.  His brand became foreign to himself and he was clearly uncomfortable with John McCain, the candidate.  Had he been true to his own brand, I think the online communities would have formed in a major way around McCain the candidate because it would have been clear he stands for something.

Presidential Politics and Online Branding

I recently received an email from Sen. John McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis asking me check out the new McCain campaign video, “Fan Club.” This 30-second spot mocks Sen. Barack Obama’s status as celebrity while sarcastically asking you to support Obama’s positions that would increase taxes and placing your faith in an inexperienced leader.

There are several problems with this approach. First, McCain has defined some of his opponents flaw but offers little (or nothing) in the way of his own ideas or policies. So, we walk away from this video knowing what McCain isn’t about…but not what he is about. In other words viewers are left asking, what are McCain’s brand attributes?

Second, pushing out the campaign’s newest 30-second spot reminds me a lot of the failed Giuliani primary campaign that used social media to broadcast, rather than engage his target audiences. The video’s landing page has no room for commenting, nor does it offer users to forward the video to a friend. All it does offer is for the user to sign-up. And even the most basic online user knows this simply leads to more one-way emails.

It appears McCain’s campaign team is ready to employ their own marketing tactics without first recognizing their brand. McCain has created the persona of independent-minded politics, doing what’s right – even it’s not popular – and having a clean image (campaign finance). Where are the tactics using these brand attributes?

The McCain team had better take a lesson from CPGs. Once they start competing on price, products become a commodity. Consumers will move on to the next product.

The good news for McCain is that there’s still enough time coming out of the conventions to get back in touch with the brand McCain has built over his Senatorial tenure.