Election 2008 Presidential Contest Marketing Messages - By Alex Hammer

May the best marketer win.

Not that something as important as the leader of our country (and perhaps the leader of the free world if we don't go broke or erode further our world influence or earned respect) should be decided by marketing, but..

We live in an age of impression management. Certainly, to some degree we always have.

Is Barack Obama weak or strong? Is he tempered or is he naive?

What about John McCain. Is he a reformer and a maverick or is he a Washington insider and President Bush clone?

In business, misrepresenting oneself is fraud, an illegal offense? In politics...

It is the responsibility of the American public to make the effort to sort out fact from fiction -- of course, we require a responsible and informing media to be able to do that etc.

Do we see in candidates what we wish to see? What they wish us to see? Some of both?

Sphere: Related Content

Bill Richardson Barack Obama Vice President

Image via Wikipedia Bill Richardson Barack Obama Vice President - By Alex Hammer

If Barack Obama handles himself as well going forward (there have been some missteps but he is the sole Democrat standing in the 2008 race for President) as he has to this point in the campaign, he will select Bill Richardson as his running mate.

1. The Hispanic vote. This is not the only reason. It may or may not be the most important factor in the selection of Bill Richardson. But let us not kid ourselves in regard to what such a selection would mean in terms of the dynamics of this important voting demographic.


2. Resume. Bill Richardson ran as a resume candidate, and solidifies some of the areas in which Obama is comparatively weak, in general and against John McCain. Richardson brings not only experience but gravitas. However, and this is an important point, Richardson is well regarded but not an overwhelming presence or figure. He will not outshine Obama, and he will not attempt to do so.

3. Chemistry. Related to #2 but speaks to the dynamic between the two. Both Obama and Richardson are friendly, articulate, easygoing (the opposition might term it glib) politicians who know how to work a crowd, the media, and frame messages. They are at ease with each other, and radiate an energetic working style and flow that appears comfortable together and meshes well. Joe Biden would bring a similar type of experience to the ticket, if selected, but the Biden charisma (no offense to Biden, he's a great man, but is "Biden charisma" an oxymoron?) compared to Richardson just isn't there. Also, there is none of the apparent forced enthusiasm and effusiveness of Kerry - Edwards. It's more natural.

4. Loyalty. Speaking of Edwards, Edwards' endorsement was one factor helping to close the nomination in Obama's favor. But Richardson's endorsement came much earlier and thus at greater political risk. Richardon's endorsement, coming when it did, was a major move forward for the Obama camp in terms of gaining an advantage in the political deathmatch struggle that was occurring with Clinton at that time. This in itself demonstrated political courage for Richardson. When you couple that with the endorsement decision breaking away from Richardson's close political indebtedness to the Clintons, and the major political fallout he endured (e.g. James Carville Judas comment) by making the decision to abandon Hillary and support Obama against her at this critical juncture in the race, then you can understand why Barack is likely to feel just a little bit grateful to Bill Richardson (wouldn't you?).

5. He's not Hillary Clinton. This may be the most important reason of them all. John Edwards doesn't want to run for Vice President. He's already done that. Richardson, having run against Obama (but quick and enthusiastic to support him), now is a known, yet still fresh as well as nonthreatening entity with sufficient positives to add to a ticket to drone out those who will clamor - perhaps including Hillary herself - for a Clinton Vice Presidency. Clinton clearly has her eyes on "THE prize", is "in it to win it", spoke of the assassination of RFK some feel in the context of her Presidential aspirations, and is a Hillary player, not a team player (this focus on the White House is of course nothing new for her, some feel it is the reason she stayed with husband Bill despite years of his reported philandering). While Barack cannot well afford to alienate Hillary, and he has gone out of his way to insure that he doesn't, he can even much less afford to seek to ingratiate her by selecting her as his choice for VP. Forget about keeping your enemies closer, as one famous expression states, some political enemies (the most dangerous ones and Hillary is clearly among them) you just don't want that close.

Some will argue for electoral college math to be maximized and specific important state(s) won or put into play, or a balancing of the ticket on policy considerations as the major criteria upon which to select one's running mate. Obama and Richardson have enough in common (and also enough differences), for the five factors above to be compellingly and clearly more important, even moreso when you consider how little influence a VP choice can ultimately play in the final analysis on traditional selection factors.

Richardson has paid his dues to the party and to the nation, his timing in this election cycle was impeccable, and his time is now. Richardson represents the best of the past not tied to the past. His breaking away from the Clintons mirrors the nation's move beyond the Bush and Clinton Presidential leadership/placeholding (depending upon one's perspective) of the past two decades - 20 years.

John McCain represents a formidable obstacle, but certainly for the Democrats the future is now.

Obama - Richardson '08.

Related articles

• Should Obama Pick Clinton As Running Mate? [via Zemanta]


• Clinton as a running mate: Pros and cons [via Zemanta]

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary's Dream

Hillary's Dream - By Alex Hammer

In a general sense, it is important to have a dream. As we know, dreams keep us truly (i.e. most fully) alive. They provide the spark and juice of life, keeping us motivated amongst the winds and tides of opposition that we all face in a challenging world.

But what about when dreams go amiss?

Dreams that reside on the back of driving personal ambition can be, potentially, dangerous when unchecked. Dangerous to anyone who "gets in the way" and ultimately self-defeating as well.

Human beings become pawns in an elaborate (and when thwarted even desperate) attempt to reach the goal in an ends justifies the means type of approach.

From where does this single minded win-at-all costs mentality and approach arise? Well, one can speculate. In Hillary' case, certainly she has waited considerable time - and sacrificed and endured much!! - to have an opportunity to now be so close to reaching her power dream. Certainly she is an individual of immense talent, intelligence, determination and drive. And within her ruthless pragmatism is, I believe, a refined and devoted idealism that provides the spark for her to wage such aggressive war.

But what is she becoming? And what are we becoming when we allow her to reach this point?

I am a Barack supporter but I do believe that he is somewhat naive. He is, to my mind, being run around the flagpole by Senator Clinton, and if he takes this same easygoing approach to our adversaries across the world, which, disturbingly, he has indicated a willingness to do, he could have his lunch handed to him.

Except that as our President it would be our lunch as well.

Why, too often in American politics, do we need to choose between a Jimmy Carter and a George Bush II? An ineffective idealist versus a cowboy diplomacy warmonger. Where is the happy medium in the toughness/let's get along dimension? (Why. also, in a separate question, do we need to choose between the ethics of Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon?)

Not that we haven't had some good Presidents overall.

Our freedoms for difference of will before we eventually (essentially) come together is what makes this country great and strong, and allows us to endure crises, including constitutional crises, that might have put less strong nations asunder. From the contested 2000 Presidential election ultimately decided by the Supreme Court to the Civil War (and you could easily, I'm sure, think of your own additional examples). Somehow this nation has had the bend but don't break type of composition that has allowed us to take discord and strife and still ultimately integrate it (sometimes more effectively than others) and move on.

In Hillary's case, we must not mistake toughness, including raw ambition, for strength. If we do then we will have learned essentially nothing from that similar general category of shortcoming (although not in the same manner expressed) of the take no prisoners (and do what you want and the ends justify the means also) approach of the current administration.

They say that one receives the government one deserves. Just as an alcoholic might in some cases need to hit rock bottom before meaningful life change is made, so we cannot collectively alter our path until our collective political will is - infused by a rebellion against suffering - enlightened and strong. And we need an alternative. At the level of the Presidency, we need an individual who is strong as opposed to tough. One who will go the full measure of needed opposition to that which needs to be opposed, but no further.

For Barack to show that type of strength he must take on Hillary more forcefully. He is not finishing the contest because he is allowing her to hang on. And now a portion of the tide is beginning to swing back in her favor (power, and the world, abhors a leadership vacuum). The American people have essentially (but not definitively yet) spoken in the Democratic Presidential primary. But something is missing.

A closer.

Barack is a visionary, but he is 10% too optimistic and 10% unrealistic. Time for Barack Obama to tell the American people what they already know and are (I believe) waiting to hear from him if he is capable.

Hillary's dream is rapidly descending into our national nightmare.

Alex Hammer was a 2006 Independent candidate for Governor of Maine. His recently released book, This Great State, researches the political careers, activities and influence of prominent Maine politicians such as William Cohen, John Baldacci, Susan Collins, and George Mitchell.

Sphere: Related Content

Arianna Huffington - Too tough on the Democrats? Too much "red meat" regarding Republicans? - By Alex Hammer

Disclosures: I've had two articles published at The Huffington Post Off The Bus.

Arianna is a Facebook friend, and we've had a little bit of nice online correspondence. I've worked on a limited and volunteer basis with some of the management of OffTheBus.com, The Huffington Post's citizen journalism initiative, to try to assist the project's development.

Arianna Huffington - Too tough on the Democrats?

In her most recent blog post of December 10, entitled Arianna Huffington: Democrats Need To Admit They Have A Problem: They Are Addicted to Backing Down, Arianna states in part:
"It's shocking that any American lawmaker -- of either party -- would go along with state-sanctioned torture. But it's not shocking when you realize it's just part of a long line of Democratic "acquiescence." From the outright support of the war authorization (sorry, Hillary, we all know what the bill was about) to the latest surrender on war funding, Republicans know Democrats will bluster...and then cave. So of course they're taking "increasingly hard-lined positions.""

On this initial point of torture I would agree. There are certain issues which, if one is to maintain any real semblance of integrity and serve as a steward for civilized action in the rule of law that one must take a stand. Although I haven't followed recent developments of this issue (and thus am taking Arianna's description of the Democrat's position on it at face value) torture would clearly seem to be one such signature issue.

Go Arianna.

Later in the piece she continues:
"And that's the point. The Republican aren't going to change. If the disastrous foreign policy the U.S. has pursued for seven years is going to change, it's going to have to be because Democrats force it to change....

Memo to Oprah: while you're on the campaign trail, maybe you can facilitate an intervention. How about you and Dr. Phil show up at the next debate and haul the Democratic frontrunners and the Congressional leadership off to spinal rehab?"

Here Arianna and I begin to diverge somewhat. I realize that this excerpt (especially the Oprah part) may or may not just be cutesy language, at least in part, but let's look at additional recent material.

Arianna Huffington - Too much "red meat" regarding Republicans?

Other recent posts (not a surprise, perhaps) by Ms. Huffington on The Huffington Post contain a frontal assault on Republican actions and behaviors:
Dec. 6 - HuffPost's "The Bush Years" Posters: A Powerful Political Stocking Stuffer
Excerpt:
"Three weeks ago, we launched HuffPost's Posterizing the Modern GOP project to graphically capturing the lunacy of the Bush years."

Dec. 6 - Huckabee Tries to Shoot the Messenger, But Wounds His Campaign Instead
Excerpt:
"The way that Mike Huckabee has handled the furor caused by the Huffington Post's coverage of his role in the release of Wayne Dumond, a serial rapist who went on to rape and kill at least one other woman, has been very revealing. And troubling."

Nov. 28 - Karl Rove's Shameless, Remorseless, Soulless Attempt to Rewrite History
Excerpt:
"Too political? For Karl Rove? That's like saying something was too bloody for Count Dracula."

I'm no Republican apologist. I am an independent and I abhor some of the things that have been done by the Bush Administration etc. as described by many (also back in May 2006 I wrote Hammer Calls For Impeachment Proceedings Investigating Actions of President George Bush, a request to look into impeachment hearings to see whether that would be warranted, not a call to necessarily hold them per se, much less a call to impeach), but I also abhor something else.

I really dislike it, and think it is a fundamental problem of our government and society:

That would be partisanship.

Partisanship 101
In one prior writing, The Problem With Moral Victories, I wrote in part:
"We’re being antagonistic for the other’s own good or for the good of the state (Note: I was discussing my home state of Maine) we tell ourselves. And more than that, if we didn’t oppose strongly the other side would get a foothold and win out. We have an obligation to oppose.

But then we get stalemate. Or if one side has the numbers or leverage they get more of their things through but the other side certainly isn’t a partner and the populace becomes disenfranchised from all the rancor and lack of bipartisan results and tunes out or jumps on both sides - majority and minority - and says politicians are as good as lawyers or used car salesmen (with apologies to those professions also, no one should be stereotyped in a blanketed manner).

And we relish in moral victories. What we prevented the other side from accomplishing becomes more prominent and a source of pride than what we individually (or collaboratively with the other side) would have been able to produce in terms of positive effects. It’s that famous “politics of destruction”. It may seem easier to tear down than build up, and possibly more fun. But while it takes great skill to build a beautiful building, any bulldozer can demolish it in short order."

and

"There is a famous story of a hand that said that it wasn’t going to feed food to the mouth, because the mouth got all the pleasure of eating and the hand did all this unrewarded work! So it stopped out of stubbornness, wouldn’t listen to reason and the person starved. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!"

Naive?
I'm not talking about allowing oneself to be steamrolled. One can be fiercely determined without ever being abrasive, or name-calling, or condescending.

Force, while I wouldn't rule it out in all instances, can be counterproductive, leading to retaliation, defensivesiveness, passive-aggressiveness, etc.

Take your pick of these famous sayings:

"An eye for an eye leaves the entire world blind"

"We must make sure that when we fight monsters that we do not become monsters ourselves"

and

"Violence is the last bastion of the incompetent". Like a frustrated parent that may hit their child to "behave", sometimes when we do not know more effective solutions one might turn to short term fixes that can also bring long term baggage.

Not that there aren't any bullies also in the world, I recognize.

And one more:

"We have met the enemy, and it is us"

In Red Meat I write in part:
"The candidates become gladiators for our drives and desires. We love to, on the one side, see the Republicans taken down a notch. And boy that Hillary is tough. I think some Republican Administrations have been arrogant, and I don’t mind, in some respects, them being taken down a notch as well. But in some areas areas I am conservative and I also don’t believe that these types of attacks - though they feel good - really service our country.

And boy that Rove, he sure is good (”boy genius” is one of his nicknames). I’m being sarcastic. Rove has been immensely effective (although not recently) it appears, by supplementing brainpower with ruthlessness. That’s not what our country needs."

I know that there are a substantial amount of, for example, Independents in this country, but we in my opinion shouldn't complain about the politicians we elect when they do the things that they said that they would do (in large or small measure) were we to elect them.

We say that we want higher quality programs on TV, but then we collectively watch (and thus reinforce) junk.

On the whole I somewhat prefer Democrats to Republicans (although on some issues I am more in the Republican group, realize both groups are far from homogeneous), as I am not a relativist that believes that anything is as good as anything else. I couldn't criticize Ms. Huffington for her writing, who I admire as a writing and business and political talent, without looking at the context within our greater society that allows and in fact may foster such particular tone of expression (and Arianna is much much more tame in her writing than some).

In sum, I'd also like to see the Democrats have more backbone. But without the read meat.

Sphere: Related Content

The Democratic Debate - What They Really Said - By Alex Hammer

Excerpts:
"Here are my interpretations of what the candidates may have really meant in their responses to the ABC Debate on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” (debate excerpts from transcript in quotes, with my interpretation of what they may have really meant embedded in italics)."

and

"“STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Biden, you stepped into this last week. You told Newsweek magazine that Senator Obama is “not yet ready” to be president........

“OBAMA: Well, you know, to prepare for this debate, I rode in the bumper cars at the state fair, and…
A. They’re not getting to me.
B. The other candidates pretend to be funny. I really am.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

But, George, I don’t actually see that much difference or people criticizing me on the substance of my positions. I think that there’s been some political maneuvering taking place over the last couple of weeks.
Put it back on them. This is easy.

I do think that there’s a substantive difference between myself and Senator Clinton when it comes to meeting with our adversaries. I think that strong countries and strong presidents meet and talk with our adversaries. We shouldn’t be afraid to do so.
Put it back on her. Nothing sticks to me.

We’ve tried the other way. It didn’t work.
Back on her again.

I think that, if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and we’ve exhausted all other options, we should take him out before he plans to kill another 3,000 Americans. I think that’s common sense.
Show I’m not weak. They blasted me before.

So there’s one other thing that I believe.
I could talk all day. They love me."

Read Story

Sphere: Related Content

Vision - By Alex Hammer

Excerpt:
"Also, “the perfect should not be the enemy of the good”. Just because humans may never be perfect does not mean that we should let up on our quest to be better than we are today. Our elected officials play a big role in this. We turn to them to embody our wishes, and for leadership ."

http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/columnists/14611/vision/

Sphere: Related Content

Toolbox For Moderates
Brief Excerpt Below From http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/centrists/guest-voice-toolbox-for-moderates/ (Politics 2.0 Note: This is my most detailed examination to date on political factors influencing moderates and independents).
By Alex Hammer

Very Very Brief Excerpt:

As I sat down to do this column for The Moderate Voice I thought to myself, why do I politically identify with such terms as moderate, Independent and bi-partisan? What do they mean to me, and why do I value them?

And then I started to think to myself, what are the tools that I or any moderate would need to makes one’s ideas successful?

Sphere: Related Content

Independent Nation

We all know that a house divided against itself will not long stand.

Democrats fight with Republicans and Republicans fight with Democrats. We have come to expect this. But if moderate, bi-partisan Independents can't find common ground, then how much better at unifying the country are we really going to be?

Another Question

Why, with the large percentage of Americans who classify themselves as Independent do we not have more Independents elected to office? I am from a state - Maine - in which we had the nation's first Independent Governor (James Longley, 1975-1979) followed recently by two term Independent Maine Governor Angus King (1995-2003). Maine's two highly regarded and popular US Senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, are known as highly centrist Republicans.

2008

Is there an Independent candidate that has a serious chance of winning the Presidency in 2008? I am intrigued by speculation of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg potentially running for President, and doing so as an Independent. The extremely capable and highly regarded Bloomberg is also personally worth billions of dollars, no additional small benefit when it is reported that the very top 2008 Presidential candidates are likely to eschew public financing as they raise $500 million to $1 billion apiece for their campaigns.

I guess, to paraphrase the famous saying, a few hundred million here, a few hundred million there, and pretty soon you're talking real money.

Maine and I

Not to be too hung up on my state, but Maine also has nationally leading public financing that more and more states are considering and adopting. In 2006 I was an Independent candidate for Governor of Maine. Very unfortunately for me, only a month after declaring my candidacy I was hit by a pick-up truck while a pedestrian, resulting in 29 days in the hospital followed by ten months on crutches. As a result I was not able to participate in Maine's public financing system. But I saw how it elevated the quality of participation and resulted in increased detailing of policy stances in the race.

The United States

I believe that we are a great and strong country. For all of our nation's problems, would you rather live anywhere else? I couldn't imagine it for myself. I believe in the ideals upon which this country was founded and which have evolved over the course of America's history. Certainly we all have things that we wish were different in and/or with the US, sometimes substantially so. But as we look out onto the world and all the difficulties found in many other places, I feel that it is (or should be) very easy to be grateful for the specialness of this country and what we really have.

Finally

I wouldn't care if a Democrat or Republican won the Presidency in 2008 if I felt they were best able to remedy the issues our country faces and most easily bring us together. I believe almost by definition that an Independent would be best able to do this. However, I don't know if the infrastructure, or the consciousness in regard to the power of Independent sentiment nationwide, is established enough for that really to happen now.

Remember those two Independent Maine Governors I mentioned. Both were stunning upsets, being so far behind throughout much of the race to barely be on the radar screen.

Somehow, so improbably, both of those Independents won. In the NFL they have a saying to describe the chances that an underdog still retains when facing a prohibitive favorite. It is: "That is why they still play the game" (as opposed to just mailing in the expected result).

Of course every politician says this, but I truly do strongly believe that America's best days are in front of us (wise choices will insure that). Running for Governor of Maine I was so impressed with the strength and diversity of thought and contribution of 1.3 million people. Factor that up to the size of the American electorate, and I really think that you have something breathtakingly special.

Can an Independent win in 2008? It all depends on what you (that is we as a nation, and specifically the substantial subset "Independent Nation"), think. And then more importantly the productive actions that we are willing to make together armed with that knowledge.

Alex Hammer

Sphere: Related Content

As Posted on www.unity08.com to http://www.unity08.com/node/773

A Unity08 Presidential Victory in 2008
AlexHammer on February 15, 2007 - 1:20pm

This question and answer is very good because it puts more "flesh on the bones" in terms of an understanding of how Unity08 works and what is the process leading up to the nomination of the ticket in 2008.

The next important step, for this group to be not only viable but successful, is to communicate interactively to a greater degree across the nation. Although Unity08.com will have an Internet nominated candidate (actually team), the group already significantly trails the "traditional campaigns" in regard to even basic viral marketing and web 2.0 tools. Where are the RSS feeds that allow one to subscribe to and receive blog postings? Where are the popular widgets to communicate video, graphics and other media across the interent? When you look at the campaigns of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and others, Unity08 is currently unfortunately being obviously and profoundly outdone in terms of sophisticated online marketing and communication efforts.

Why is that?

As a 2006 Independent candidate for Governor of Maine (www.hammer2006.politicalgateway.com) I am highly convinced that this nation does indeed need a bi-partisan, balanced ticket in 2008 to make true progress on the major issues facing our nation. I've joined with others to create Politics 2.0 - The convergence of politics and web 2.0, www.hammer2006.blogspot.com, a leading site devoted to detailing and examining how online technology tools are being used to transform the political landscape. We need one or more prominent bloggers on the site to chronicle Unity08.com and what they have to offer this nation. If you feel that this describes you and that you can do this effectively, you may contact me directly for consideration at hscpub@aol.com

With Hillary gaining a reported 100,000 email names in her first three day series of online chats, Barack Obama utilizing sophisticated social networking capabilities, the major candidates plastering the online networks of MySpace, YouTube, Facebook and others and also utilizing online contributions to perhaps now blow away even the Howard Dean online fundraising standards (that will allow some of these candidates to eschew well over $100 million in public financing as they expect to raise many times more than this on their own), it is clear that the rules of politics have very much changed.

To paraphrase a famous commerical, 2008 is not your grandfather's political campaign. As Unity08.com becomes more technologically and interactively proficient, if it does, it will merge the intellectual and idealogical bi-partisanship that much of the country is hungry for with the pragmatic, innovative efficiency that drives results. Huge numbers of Americans, frustrated with the lack of progress in the country, identify themselves as Independents. That is political clout, and political power. But how are they to be mobilized? Any organization that can effectively provide forums and mechanisms for that discontent to be effectively channeled will be huge. And victorious. But more than rhetoric and good intentions are required. We need to learn to do, collectively, what is required to be successful "where the rubber meets the road".

Does Unity08.com have what it takes? I believe that in these trying times that anyone not willing to be part of the solutions is, perhaps, in some respects part of the problem. So I very much hope that the answer evolves into "yes".

Sphere: Related Content

Can you say Politics 2.0 Avalanche?

If people thought Howard Dean was an Internet political phenomenon, 2008 campaigns for President, just begun, have the potential to say, "You aient seen nothing yet".

While Hillary - www.hillaryclinton.com - set a high standard with her opening three nights of web conversations in which she gained a reported 100.000 email addresses, Barack Obama - www.barackobama.com - is matching his rival step for step, and perhaps then some. In addition to his video announcement, Obama has added profound social networking capabilities to his website.

And the nice widget below.

Want this badge?

Can you say viral marketing?

Certainly much is in flux and the rules are still developing. Barack had to close comments to permission only after an ugly reader posted comment found its way into and made the rounds of the press, and John Edwards had to seek a difficult middle ground (to his bloggers' posts prior to joining his campaign) between outraged public sensibilities and online free speech defenders.

On this Politics 2.0 site below, following the post, we employ (and hope you will make use of) many leading tools for viral marketing. For example, subscribe to this blog as a feed (e.g. My Yahoo, My MSN, My AOL, etc.) or as a widget delivered to you with all the latest headlines, join a community of those with similar interests or view Politics 2.0 information from other sites.

But for the Presidential candidates the stakes are, of course, much higher. It is possible that we will be getting there much more quickly than we thought (or not). When Hillary opts out of the public financing system because it contains only $150 million or so of funding while news reports estimate that it may in fact take $500 million to a staggering $1 billion in total campaign fundraising for a winning campaign, obviously the roadmap and rules of engagement have changed.

Sites have sprung up to compare which Presidential candidate has the most friends on MySpace and other social networking sites, and also on which candidate videos to YouTube and other sites can be compared.

Who needs the network news anymore when we have such tools of this type? The candidate controls their own message, and the audiences are becoming quite large. I envision a day (we're not there yet) in which requests for interview profiles by major news outlets are left unanswered by the top campaigns in favor of these more controllable (and eventually potentially larger) politics 2.0 audiences.

And traditional debates? Someday they may be seen as too unscripted, too risky. Nah, why would they want to do that?

Alex Hammer

Sphere: Related Content

What it Takes to Win the Presidency in 2008

Where We're At

I've been spending a lot of time recently reviewing the emerging field for 2008, following numerous news sources, RSS feeds and the like in regard to the major issues of our day (which as you know are many and pressing), and networking with as many of "those in the know" as possible. Here is some of what I have found:

Lessons From The 2006 Election

Clearly the electorate as demonstrated wants problems facing our nation solved. They wanted some checks on this current Administration, but if this country is not "brought together" from a fractured condition in regard to how many (or at least a sizable number) view it, both major parties, many feel, will be held accountable next time....in rapidly approaching 2008

Politics 2.0
My background ( before running for Governor of Maine in 2006, www.hammer2006.politicalgateway.com ) is in business, specifically digital media. I possess considerable expertise (and have had some success) in the content, collaborative, community and citizen media fields so integral to Web 2.0. You know about Web 2.0. We're all becoming more connected, able to seek out (or increasingly, being brought to us) the information and contacts that we want rather than being passive recipients of mass media, ads and commercial media etc. The world, including the world of information, is now more participatory and personalized. We're individuals, and being recognized as such. Our contributions are fueling blogs, video, podcasts, community sites, wikis - politics is of course also in transition from these tidal forces. Now as a politician I have to continually communicate WITH you, not just bombard my message AT you as was a bit easier to get away with in the past (I say "thankfully", this day is long overdue).

2008 Presidential Politics

Check out the candidates' websites and you will see these new media capabilities being leveraged not only for communications (and candidate videos - those on their websites and shared with YouTube and others - blogs and MySpace profiles are only the beginning) but also for fundraising, volunteer management, microtargeting (including message segmentation) and other areas. As a 2008 Presidential candidate, if I am sophisticated I can "deliver the right message, to the right person, at the right time, and in the right format". That's how I describe it anyway.

And that is pretty powerful, when you think through some of the implications in regard to what is now possible (and hence increasingly expected).


You and I
How do you profit from these possibilities, and who will some of the winners be?
That is where we all as voters and citizens of this nation are in this - figuring this out - together. And here at Politics 2.0 we enjoy being involved in this role. If you wish to be considered for our growing list of leading blog contributors, if you have a notable political blog of your own that we may be able to include in our blogroll, or if you just have comments, feedback or information in regard to where poltics is headed and the role of web technologies and processes in that capacity then I would love to hear from you. You can email me at hscpub@aol.com.

But Wait!
I know, I didn't say who the 2008 Presidential winner will be. Ok, well here is who it could be. Here's a hint of who, in the most symbolic but meaningful sense it could be and should be. The 2006 Time Magazine Person of the Year was........YOU.

Alex Hammer

Sphere: Related Content

As guest blogged on http://americanmoderateparty.blogspot.com/ 02 July 2006

The New Media Political Waves Are Just Beginning

First things first. Thank you Peter very much!

My name is Alex Hammer and I am an Independent candidate for Governor of Maine. Our campaign website is www.hammer2006.politicalgateway.com

This type of "guest blogging" is, I believe, merely one illustration of this new media that is taking politics by storm. How far these waves go, and in what directions, will impact what our country looks like going forward, so each of our efforts are very important as there is much at stake.

Our collective influence will be determined by the individual and collective visions that all those in the "new media" (joining those in the "traditional media") are able to productively harness. While I am focused most heavily on Maine, I look forward to continuing to learn (and hopefully be included!) from others also using these same powerful forces that are impacting all of us in all corners.

Blogs - One Opportunity to Influence (and Perhaps Increasingly Dominate) Your World

With more and more people getting their news (and commentary) online, the role and respect for individual citizens (and groups of them) with something to say, and a primed audience waiting for that content and responding to it, is, in the positive sense of the terms, mushrooming and exploding. And traditional media forces, not laying down for this fight, are playing now also with an entire host of new and expanding interactive and communication tools.

An Extended Way of Doing Business

Clearly something significant is going on here.When things are changing this quickly, the expression "Lead, follow or get out of the way" takes on, I would say, greater meaning. Think of the get out of the way part. Those oblivious to the impact of emerging citizen led media forces truly (to borrow another expression) "ignore them at their own peril" and run the risk of simply getting trampled.

Flattened.

Irrelevant or left behind.

That is (obviously) not what we want to happen to us or you would (I imagine) want to have happen to you. Hammer For Maine Governor has been focused, from the onset, in embracing (in addition to welcoming and being appreciative of traditional media attention) developed and developing citizen based and alternative "new media".

And there is a growing momentum to such efforts. Like attracts to like. And those that are ahead in these practices associate with and recommend those that they know and respect to other media leaders or trailblazers and the opportunities in this way to very quickly ramp up to a significant and large audience grows, over time, almost exponentially.

Maine and the World

Hammer for Maine Governor has developed (we're so shy, but it's true) the most sophisticated and insightful economic and overall solutions for Maine of any candidate in the race for Maine Governor. Those that live here know how badly we need them.

Being aware and connected with the larger contexts in which Maine resides aids in efficiently utilizing and promoting solutions for the benefit of our state. On top of the significant Maine media that we have received we are now also receiving increased National coverage from both "new media" and "traditional" sources.

Maine is a state with a fierce independent political history, including two Independent Governors over the last approximately 30 years (James Longley 1975-1979 and Angus King 1995-2003). For a relatively small state, Maine has had its share (or more) of recent politicians of national prominence, including: George Mitchell, Ed Muskie, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Margaret Chase Smith and Bill Cohen as a few examples. Successful Maine politicians are known for embodying high standards of quality (highly principled and effective), and generally as pragmatic, collaborative problem-solvers, able to reach across party lines to find solutions and as productively independent thinkers.

Future Wave

Impacts I believe that politicians as well as policy and political decisions are now capable of being more scrutinized than ever, and this is a good thing. In this truly 24 hour always on news cycle every event can be debated and discussed.

Even more than this we are entering the age of "participatory government" and by extension "participatory politics". Such increased citizen involvement, has the potential I believe, if it is demanded, to hold politicians to account to provide more than "sound bite" answers or what I refer to as "dessert politics".The challenges in Maine and throughout our country are, as most I believe by now clearly recognize, quite real and significant. Now, perhaps more than ever, there are the tools and the opportunities to examine the candidates in greater depth to determine exactly who does (and does not!) provide the most viable solutions. We are, or can be, to borrow still another phrase, our own "Army of one".

Riding the Wave (or at Least Not Getting Trampled!)

At Hammer for Maine Governor we work hard to continue to look for (and hopefully find) deeper and more meaningful ways in which to embrace what we believe are the exciting times in which we live.

Real opportunities for dramatic success will increasingly reside with those who can get out in front and positively leverage the great tides of change that are occurring globally, nationally and locally rather than (there's always that other side!) getting swept aside (or under) due to a lack of awareness or adaptation.I look forward to working with all of you, in and outside of Maine, that also feel these opportunities, and this call.Now, in this world in which we find ourselves, the opportunities for breakaway success are not to be missed.

Continuing best wishes and thank you,

Alex Hammer

Sphere: Related Content