Bethejustin.com

I saw the following tweet come through from the White House:

Fresh photo: Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Bill Clinton in the Situation Room http://bit.ly/3ZqQ8k

Okay now something just I don't know caught my eye and felt off about that. Are Ex-Presidents frequently invited into the situation room?  Maybe it is all the West Wing I watched but it always seemed to me like the situation room is where the rubber meets the road in terms of a president making decisions.  I just find it interesting with all the talk about Bill Clinton's role, etc. that the White House would want this image out there. Obama is the president sure but this is going to drive people crazy I think as they wonder is Bill Clinton Obama's Dick Cheney? What exactly is his role? To what extent does he have influence of policy, decisions, etc? I think it is important to know these things.  Take a look at the photo and judge for yourself:

So I've broken my blogging silence, and what life and death topic could possibly have caused that you might be wondering. Yup, you guessed it, Twitter!! Yeah yeah hate if you want but I couldn't let John Stewart and the Daily Show's take on Twitter go unanswered.  You can watch the piece for yourself but basically it read like a list of the same tired old anti-Twitter talking points we've been hearing since almost the day the service launched. "Twitter is full of meaningless dribble, is a distraction, blah, blah." 

What is interesting to me is this idea that has sprung up recently around the idea that it is some how wrong for our elected representatives to be Twittering. Frankly I'll never understand that kind of sentiment.  One would think that as a result of our government being one "of the people, by the people, and for the people" we would welcome openly attempts by our elected officials to communicate with us, those who they represent, in more direct ways.  Are some attempts at this ill conceived and comical, certainly, but to suggest that some how representatives are sacrificing the quality of their work because they are Twittering is purely absurd. Anything that opens the lines of communication into our democracy is a good thing, it's that simple.

Moreover I actually take offense at the assertion that some how you can't be on Twitter and paying attention. Typically when I watch these kinds of events I have at least one IM conversation going, two or ore three Twitter searches running, and I'm also monitoring my regular Twitter feed.  I'm sorry if that makes Mr. Stewart's "middle aged" (hey his words) brain hurt but this is the reality of how news is consumed, digested, and discussed in 2009.  A Twitter hashtag like #obama during a State of the Union is today's equivlent of the townsquare. This is infact exactly why the media and governments have begun to take note not because, as Mr. Stewart would imply, they are mindless drones that try anything new but because they have recognized this fact.

To me the segment shows just how little Mr. Stewart understands about Twitter to some how imply that nothing meaningless can be said in 140 characters makes it clear to me that Mr. Stewart hasn't spent much, if any, time actually on the site himself.  It also amazes me how little people understand the concept of a hashtag and the conversations that can occur there in real time.  I've witnessed debates happen, and a real dialogue develop. It is something to behold frankly and I welcome the day when Twitter elevates this functionality to the level it deserves and gets it infront of more users.

Samantha Bee was right about one thing Mr. Stewart is not immune from the effects of the new media and social revolution, increasingly the conversation is moving to forums line Facebook, Twitter and Youtube, and away from forums like Mr. Stewart's.  Mr. Stewart is a comedian and his job is to mock things and people but he normally manages to accomplish said feat without looking completely ignorant and demeaning his core demographic in the process. "Grunter?"  What because we "young people" can't formulate coherent thoughts? Really...hu...interesting I suppose that explains the unprecedented number of young people who became involved in their democracy over the course of the 2008 election.

I'm consistently mocked for my devotion and belief in the power of Twitter.  Most people trot out the same tired talking points that Mr. Stewart himself used.  There is power in Twitter however, it is an equalizer in a world of increasing class disparity.  The ability to "@ reply" anyone from the likes of a U.S. Senator, the President, Kevin Rose, Levar Burton, or Shaq is a powerful force.  The naysayers call me naive like they have all through my life "They don't really read that you know."  True in some cases perhaps not but someone does and the feedback does filter back I am convinced of that.  I was once able to @NASA and get a reply back to a question, now how would I have done that just a few years ago? I would probably have needed to be a credentialed reporter in a press room somewhere.  Say what you will but that is the power of Twitter.

There's a line from my favorite movie, The American President, that's always stuck with me and I usually point to when I'm describing who I'd want my president to operate.

The other piece of legislation is the crime bill. As of today, it no longer exists. I'm throwing it out. I'm throwing it out and writing a law that makes sense. You cannot address crime prevention without getting rid of assault weapons and hand guns. I consider them a threat to national security, and I will go door to door if I have to, but I'm gonna convince Americans that I'm right, and I'm gonna get the guns.

There's a few reasons why I admire this approach but what it comes down to is ownership of the position, belief, principle. Take a stand, know you are right, and then convince the American people you're right even if you have to for example go door to door.

Over the last few weeks some have been attacking Obama for his allegedly mishandling of the stimulus bill, etc. However I would disagree it seems to me that President Obama has decided to take a book out of President Shepherd's play book and has been attempting to convince the American people that he's right and persuade them to come around to his position.

It's easy understand why this is alarming to some because for so long we've been entrenched in ideology and there hasn't really been a true debate on the merits of ideas and policy in this country for quite a while. In fact we've reached a point in this country where people become very defensive when their ideas are challenged and they tend to take what is really just an attempt at debate and dialogue as a personal attack. President Obama knows full well that not everyone is going to agree with him but that isn't the point, the point is that he's standing by what he believes is the best course of the action for the country and attempting to sell that to the American people.

Hopefully President Obama's approach is going to raise the level of public discourse in this country and we can get back to a place were we judge ideas and policies on the basis of the merits and whether they have an opportunity to work and to help people. This would be in sharp contrast to what we've seen as more of the same from the republicans in the Senate (once lauded as the worlds greatest deliberative body) as the attempt to score the same old tired political points and bandi about things like tax cuts and pork. Funny though they never seem willing to engage in an actual debate over how many jobs for example upgrading ATV trails might create. Those are the terms that President Obama has been trying to fame this debate within not scoring political points and counting up "pork."

I'm certainly curious to see how this approach evolves over the course of the Obama presidency will he for example leverage his supporter databases, social networks, etc. to engage citizens to literally go door to door for him. If the establishment is scared now they should be terrified at that prospect, that's the watershed moment.

This approach is part of the change that President Obama promised to try to effect. Will it happen at the wave of a wand and suddenly the way our government fundamentally operates will change completely? Of course not but this is how it starts folks, one conversation, one debate, one idea, one blog post at a time. Yes we Can.

Since news broke that President Obama was going to nominate Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) to the cabinet position of Commerce Secretary everyone has been asking me my thoughts, you know being the astute NH political observer that I am...HA! Well here are my thought's anyways.

Initially I was disappointed by Governor John Lynch not showing a little more backbone and maybe standing up for the Democratic party in his own state, of which he claims to be a member, and saying you know what no I'm not going to turn my back on the state party even if you are Barack Obama. However as I've though about it that wouldn't really be a feasible option for Lynch as he needs to do whatever he can to win the good graces (read: stimulus money) of Barack Obama. Particularly since most in the state are pretty certian Lynch can balance the budget with out that additional money.

My thoughts then turned to Representative Paul Hodes (D-NH) and Representative Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) both of whom have been expressing greater interest in running for Gregg's seat in the Senate, how would this appointment affect those plans? Before the actual appointment had been announced by Lynch I thought it would be a cunning political move by Gregg to demand that Lynch appoint recently defeated John E. Sununu. In that scenario Lynch's career would be over regardless of what he did appoint Sununu and your own party would want blood, don't appoint Sununu and you're essentially slapping the incredibly popular President, a member of your part, in the face by denying him his pick for Commerce Secretary (Gregg said he'd only accept if the balance of power in the Senate didn't change). As it turns out Lynch decided to appoint J. Bonnie Newman, a loyal Gregg devotee, to the vacant seat. Hodes has now offically announced his campaign and in all likelihood the Democrats may have a much better shot at Newman who'll only be warming the seat for a year than they would have at Gregg, although I think he was vulnerable as well.

Perhaps my favorite part of all this are the two pieces of trivia below from MSNBC:

2. New Hampshire will become the FOURTH state to currently have two female senators: (Washington, California and Maine do now)

3. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) will, after only 30 days in office, become the SENIOR Senator from New Hampshire. As Senate Historical Office's Betty Koed points out, with that new title comes the privilege of getting the coveted Daniel Webster Senate desk. By law, the senior senator from NH gets to use the desk!

Yeah that's right, the Senior Senator from New Hampshire is by Senate rule entitled to the Daniel Webster desk!!! Which I just find awesome.  Hopefully this will put to rest any argument over whether Webster is New Hampshire's son (though that was never truly in doubt) or Massachusetts'.