I have lots of liberal friends who say this is the death of Democracy and the Democratic party. Why? Because the Republicans and their corporate friends have all the money! Put aside the usual (and also boring) Republican retort that the liberal labor unions do the same thing. Are we really going to make judicial decisions based on what we think might happen?

There is either a First Amendment prohibition against the abridgement of free speech or there isn’t. Even if my friends are right, isn’t that an outcome-based reason? Are we going to chip away at the first amendment protections because we think it will create an outcome we want? I’m not so sure.

And is this court decision going to make things worse than they already are? There seems to be some notion that our system today works. Take it from someone who sees it every day. Politicians at every level spend a majority of their time raising money. They figure out how to get around the spending laws by creating PACS and other groups. They hate the system and would rather spend their time governing.

One of the reasons Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut is in political trouble and is retiring is because the public perceived him as in the pocket of the banks and bankers, many of whom are headquartered in his state. True or not, I guarantee you Chris Dodd spends A LOT of time with the financial services industry as the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. And I guarantee you he calls them A LOT, asking for money – under the current system.

And the people in my business of communications and politics don’t like going to fundraisers or getting the solicitation calls. We’d rather work. Vermont actually has a really good law than bans its politicians from asking a registered lobbyist for money during the states legislative session. That cleans things up fairly well. But don’t be fooled. It doesn’t stop them from forming a PAC and soliciting money anyway.

Take a look at Glenn Greenwald’s piece in Slate about this. And Eliot Spitzer’s comments are good too. Can this ruling really make the system worse than it is? I don’t see how it can get worse.

I am really skeptical about adjusting the first amendment because of the outcome we want. The society surprises you. Corporations are already voicing their displeasure – under the first amendment of course – with the ruling, saying they want out of the game. IBM has always said it doesn’t contribute to candidates.

You might see a wholesale rejection of the system as a result of this ruling. You might see a vigorous debate about it. TV commercials, radio talk shows, web ads, Facebook chat.

Will some Democratic lawmaker lose their seat because of negative ads paid for by some corporate raider? Sure. (That happens in every election already). Will some corporate lobbyist threaten a member of Congress with a bag of campaign money if he doesn’t vote the way that lobbyist’s corporate client wants? Yes. And that happens today. But remember that former Congressmen William Jefferson (cash in the freezer) and Randall Duke Cunningham, were caught and convicted.

Predicting the outcome of Supreme Court cases under the First Amendment is risky business, especially when you are trying to control people’s speech. It may be the outcome you want today. But tomorrow, it might be something you hate.

More than 100 people have died in U.S. custody in the jails since 2003. And the Times reports that U.S. immigration officials covered up information about the mistreatment and deaths. In one shocking instance, former Vermont reporter and gubernatorial aide Michael Gilhooly, now a spokesman for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, rebuffed a reporter asking about a detainee with a fractured skull. Gilhooly told the reporter he could not answer her questions. But the Times reports that he had already told superiors about the inquiry and shared information of the detainee, a Guinean tailor named Boubacar Bah. The Times reports that Bah had been left in an isolation cell for 13 hours before an ambulance was called.

The Times reports that agency officials in Washington and Newark, N.J. conferred by telephone and email about avoiding the cost of Bah’s care and also the bad publicity.

Bah died.

What a mess from top to bottom. You can bet there are lots of meetings happening right now in the Obama administration about how this was handled from a communications standpoint.

What should they do? Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano should immediately order an investigation and an overhaul of the immigration detainment policy and bring in an independent, respected authority to oversee the changes. Then once she has discovered what happened and why, she should repeat over and over again the changes and progress made.

Not the scholastic kind, where it comes through the front door and hits you over the head via a teacher, but via a Springsteen concert – in Brooks’s experience.

I can substitute dozens of other second education experiences, mostly stolen from my wife, who specializes in this kind of thing with young people. She calls it social-emotional learning and writes about it at http://adolescentwork.wordpress.com/.

You can find this education on the athletic field, in the art gallery, on stage, Hell – after hours under the stadium bleachers – anywhere but having it jammed down your throat in standardized testing prep sessions.

This kind of learning affects everything in politics and communications. The social emotional types – you know them when you see or hear them – have a leg up on the rest of the field. Think Obama, not Al Gore. Think George Bush (yes, go ahead) not Mitt Romney or John McCain. The ultimates – of course – were Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan.

For Vermont political readers, the Democratic primary field for governor is pretty socially-emotionally strong, with Sen. Peter Shumlin a standout. Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie – with perceived weaknesses on policy and public speaking – is actually very strong in this department.

These are people who know who they are. They are people comfortable in social situations. They don’t need scripting by staff. They put a room at ease and can make a meeting sing, or inspire a kid in trouble.

There are five credible, articulate, energetic candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for governor. The party has produced a plethora of talented candidates who believe 2010 is their year: the Senate President Pro Tem, the Secretary of State, the chairs of the Senate Appropriations and Health and Welfare Committees and a former House Majority Whip.

Wow!

Each has an impressive political and personal track record. Each could be elected governor. Too bad they can’t win this election. There is no way a Democrat can survive a bruising, bare-knuckled, five-way primary in September and win a general election seven weeks later.

No way! It can not be done!

Peter Shumlin, Deb Markowitz, Doug Racine, Susan Bartlett and Matt Dunne know this is the truth. Democratic donors who spend millions to elect not just run candidates for office know this is the truth. The Vermont media recognizes this is the truth. And perhaps most importantly the lieutenant governor can see the truth. In fact, he is praying that God is a Republican and that Anthony Pollina signs on as a Democrat and makes it a six-way race.

Peter Shumlin

Deb Markowitz

Doug Racine

Susan Bartlett

Matt Dunne

Last weekend the Democrats got a snapshot of what the next nine months will look like. Four of the candidates and one surrogate squared off before a coalition of environmental groups at Vermont Technical College. They networked; they browsed; they presented. They scraped and scrapped, bowed and genuflected before a roomful of Democrats to demonstrate why they are better; why they should be anointed.

Dubie meanwhile was at a parade in Barre City, arguably a Democratic town. Dubie was talking to voters, most of whom have not yet made up their mind. He’ll be doing this every week for the next year while the Democrats speak to the converted and each other.

The numbers tell the story. In the last decade, no more than 40,000 Vermonters have ever voted in a primary election for governor. Let’s assume this next election draws an unprecedented 60,000 voters. In a five way race, 35 percent of the vote or 21,000 will win. So on primary day the Democratic candidate will have made 21,000 voters happy and disappointed 39,000 others.

Let’s also assume it will take as many votes to win in 2010 as it did in 2008 when Jim Douglas got about 170,000 votes for about 53 percent. The Democrat and Independent candidates got 139,000 votes together; if you recall the Democrat ran third. So the primary winner will need to find about 149,000 votes in seven weeks. It can not be done.

The arguments are endless. Perhaps, most importantly there isn’t enough money. Something has to give. Something has to change. Perhaps the Democrats should draw straws; the odds that anyone of them could be elected governor would go up.

I didn’t fully understand that comment until I read the new book by Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe – “The Audacity to Win.”

Ignore the reviews in newspapers! If you are a political junkie of ANY PARTY, you’ll stay up all night with this one.

Plouffe drops all sorts of bombs on the reader about the historic campaign. But he is subtle and you have to pay attention. I read it with pen in hand, making notes.

The biggest “Ah Ha” moment comes when Plouffe explains the strategy behind caring more about winning delegates than about winning states. Translation: It was just as important – if not more – to win the Idaho Caucus (18 delegates) than to win the New Jersey primary. (107 delegates). Clinton won New Jersey by 10 points, won 59 delegates to 48 for Obama, a net gain of 11 delegates. Obama won Idaho with 80 percent of the vote, winning 15 of the 18 delegates, a net of 12 delegates.

That means Obama had a net gain of one delegate over Clinton, even though she won a delegate-rich state like New Jersey. This scenario repeated itself over and over. It’s boring inside baseball. But it won Obama the nomination. It must have been a terrible sinking feeling inside the Clinton campaign that they could not win, even as they were “winning big states like California and New York.

Because Plouffe and his staff could count i.e. win delegates in small states like Idaho and Maine, Obama is president.

One last “Ah Ha” moment from the book. The mainstream media did not catch on to this strategy until very late. For months, Plouffe says the media completely missed what was actually going on behind the scenes – the real strategy. Not a great vote of confidence.

Why is that important? Because the campaign could now communicate with those people, raise money from them, and form them into a fighting force on behalf of their candidate.

This texting tool is just one of many ways in which Obama used emerging digital technologies to win. Whether it’s Twitter, Facebook, texting, email or whatever, these new media tools are critical to the success of any venture. Whether you are selling a candidate or soap, digital media has become an essential tool that all campaigns MUST use.

In Vermont, the marriage equality campaign for gay and lesbian couples used new media tools to great organizing advantage. But thus far, political candidates have not yet used these tools to their full extent.

That’’s about to change.

For the first time, we will see a gubernatorial campaign in 2010 that will make serious use of Twitter, Facebook and the other tools to identify their supporters, educate them and turn them out to vote. Supporters will make videos and put them on YouTube. They will organize house parties and raise lots of money. Why spend tens of thousands on WCAX when you can do it virtually for free on the web?

Candidates for governor have used the tools in the past. But they were either too under-funded or behind Gov. Jim Douglas for it to count. The governor never really had to use these tools because of his popularity and superior organization.

These candidates face a far different electoral landscape than they did just two years ago. FAR different. It is a landscape changed forever by the new media that Obama mastered.

Some numbers:

Facebook users in Vermont: 176,000 (That’s double from two years ago) Facebook users between ages of 20-30: 53,000 Facebook users between ages of 30-40: 33,000 Facebook users between ages of 40-50: 27,000 (That’’s right kids –your parents) Facebook users between ages of 50-64: 24,000 (some grandparents)

There are 10,000 people on Facebook in Vermont who say they have an interest in Democratic issues, Barack Obama or Ted Kennedy. That’s about the same number it takes to win a Democratic primary for governor in Vermont in 2010.

Of course the campaigns will do the traditional stuff: fundraising, press, field organization, television and radio advertising. But in every case, digital tools like Twitter and Facebook turbocharge those tactics – for cheap.

The campaign that best uses digital media and the Internet to identify, contact and organize the 10,000 voters you need to win a primary, could be the next governor. You might even go out on a limb and say any candidate should hire a web strategist before they hire a campaign manager.

Example: Democratic gubernatorial candidate Doug Racine just hired a web strategist BEFORE hiring a campaign manager.

First, a little background: Kanye West was apparently rude to someone (I say someone because we only really care about Kanye) at the MTV Music Video Awards. Kanye apologized. Then, President Obama was recently quoted as saying that West is a “jackass” on ABC’s Terry Moran’s Twitter feed. Don’t worry this is not a celebrity gossip blog entry.

It used to be the only thing a politician or public figure had to worry about was a “hot mike,” but if Obama’s little gaffe teaches us anything, it’s that one should watch out for those with itchy twitter fingers.

Twitter, unlike many social media apps, is instantaneous and somewhat irretrievable. There is typically no editorial process, or making certain that a comment was off-the-record, as it was in the instance of this particular Twitter misfire.

But Twitter is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the digital world’s incursion into private spheres – just ask Michael Richards, Saddam’s Executioners or even stranger, the thief caught on Google Streetview. There are fewer and fewer “private spaces” for everyone, not just politicians.

We in the U.S., have a great fear of a surveillance state – I would argue it is already here and run by the people rather than the government. To ascend the ivory tower for a moment, this looming reality can be connected to an idea invented by philosopher Jeremy Bentham (who still occupies a seat at University College London) and later picked up by Foucault, that of the panopticon.

I cannot help but be reminded of the first televised war – it created new obstacles and made it much more difficult for leaders to manage public opinion. Is this entire new media a boon to democracy and the public because it keeps everyone honest? Or will this new, loose, pastiche of a medium strip leaders and public figures of their aura and make them less and less palatable to the public?

If the show Big Brother has taught me anything (I cringe as I write that), the answer is “no”. I keep coming back to Marshall McLuhan’s revelation that the medium is the message. What is social media’s message?

Listen to Obama’s gaffe here.

"You Lie" - Joe Wilson

I’ll leave the politics to others and focus on the communications and “optics” around the president’s speech, which contained several communications “firsts.’’ During a presidential address to a Joint Session of Congress, I do not think I have ever seen:

1. The House Minority leader (Eric Cantor) check his Blackberry.
2. A member of Congress yell “You Lie!” in the middle of the address.
3. A president accuse his detractors of “lying” about his plan.
4. A president saying “We will call you out,” when his opponents continue to misrepresent his position.

In 30-plus years of watching presidential politics, I have never seen the chamber that tense and that partisan. The look on the faces of Republican House members was sullen, angry and defiant – not just about health care but toward Obama personally.

This may have been the case when Reagan spoke to Congress in the 1980s. But I always got the feeling back then that Democrats just felt helpless in the face of Reagan’s mastery of the crowd.

It is cliché now. But we have arrived – via the web, talk radio, Cable TV and blogs – at a place where it is OK to yell at the president during a speech to Congress. Where that goes politically is anyone’s guess.

My question is: when will someone in a leadership position emerge to say “Enough of this behavior.” At best, it feeds people’s worst instincts and drives respect for Congress down even further. At worst, it is dangerous.

Former Vermont governor, presidential candidate, DNC Chairman … and now a national voice for health care reform, especially a reform that includes the so-called public option or quasi-government plan to compete with the private insurance model.

The governor, as you’ll remember, was the chairman of the Democratic National Committee when President Obama won the presidency. The Obama campaign drew in no small part on the internet strategy that drove Dean’s presidential effort. Some gave Dean huge credit for his “50-state strategy” of devoting financial and on-the-ground resources to all 50 states, even if they were surely to be lost to Republicans. Others gave him not so much credit, mostly ex-Clinton staffers who wanted the money for battleground states or just don’t like the governor from past intra-party squabbles.

Dean does not now have a high-profile job in the administration. From his public remarks, it appears he was offered jobs but not the kind that he wanted. So where is Howard Dean today? Trying turning on your TV. Face the Nation, Hardball, Larry King Live, Countdown. He is also on a national tour to promote his book – Howard Dean’s Real Prescription for Healthcare, published by Vermont publisher Chelsea Green.

Everywhere you turn, there is Howard Dean. Why? At least two reasons.

1. Because Howard Dean has always been a very effective communicator. From the very beginning of his career, he has been blessed with a quick mind and a sharp tongue that interviewers, reporters and bloggers love. He is the perfect guest for interview shows that are sick and tired of guests who recite the day’s talking points and do so in disciplined fashion because they are told to by people in my business. “Stay on Message!”One of his top aides once told me that Dean reads the New York Times cover to cover every day and can then engage in a nuanced foreign policy discussion based on that reading. A lot of people say that. I’m not sure they do it.
2. Compared to most practicing politicians, Howard Dean is authentic. When you listen to him, you get the sense he is telling you exactly what he thinks. I have always said that is the reason his presidential campaign took off – because he said exactly what he thought and that happened to coincide – briefly – with the desire of millions of Americans.

Sure – Governor Dean has his talking points. But if you listen closely, they are delivered with the glibness and facile mind that make him one of the most authentic personalities on the public stage today.

So like him or not, as long as health care is around, you will be watching, listening to or reading Howard Dean.

Line of the month:
“[Obama] is a chess player in a town with a lot of checkers players.” David Plouffe, former Obama campaign manager.