Reports from the Aipac convention this week indicated that those advocating military action were getting the loudest cheers. I’d invite all those cheering to think about all the unintended and unanticipated consequences of the Iraq war or Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon. That’s not a reason for paralysis. It’s a reason to heed Obama’s call to give diplomacy and biting sanctions a chance to work, while keeping the threat of force on the table.
Grading the State of the Union
The Wall Street Journal has a reputation for leaning to the right. However, this morning I was struck by the sentiments of WSJ readers and just how sharply they contrasted with those of the country as a whole.
In the Wall Street Journal’s online poll asking readers to grade President Obama’s State of the Union, the plurality of people—40%—gave the President an “F,” just under the combined percentage of people who gave the President an “A,” “B,” or “C” grade. A whopping 57.6% gave the President a “D” or an “F.”

Looking at a scientific CNN Opinion Research poll, however, paints a very different picture. 84% of of respondents felt that the State of the Union was either “very positive” or “somewhat positive,” and only 4% thought that the speech was “very negative.”

Of course, there are inherent biases in people who choose to respond to online surveys. However, the fact that the disparities between the WSJ and CNN polls are so significant is telling. It appears to be illustrative of a broader phenomenon, no doubt fueled by the internet, in which news sources are politicized and people seek out partisan reporting that affirms existing opinions. This spurs news organizations to produce information that placates their audiences, resulting in the formation of echo-chambers in which partisan rhetoric masqueraded as news reaches readers/viewers/listeners who accept opinion as truth and relay it to others as such. What our democracy requires in order to ensure a well-informed electorate, however, is precisely the opposite.
Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small.
There’s one group that badly needs and deserves visas that no one seems to want to go to bat for. They are the 11 million undocumented immigrants who are already living here and helping make things work. If they had a deal — pay fines, learn English, get to the back of the immigration line and, meanwhile, get back to work — the economic benefits would be enormous. We don’t expect Mr. Smith to admit that. But we would like to hear a lot more from President Obama, and others, about why real immigration reform is so important for America.
Welcome to Tumblr, Mr. President.
As I explored in my senior thesis, the Obama team revolutionized campaigning in 2008 by tapping into the power of social. Aside from using the internet to raise an unprecedented amount of money, social networking promoted volunteerism, mobilized youth, built a community of supporters and made the campaign’s messaging ubiquitous. In the 2010 election cycle however, every candidate was on Twitter and Facebook and carbon copying so many of the Obama campaign’s innovations.
I agree with Nick Bilton that establishing a presence on Tumblr—a newer, fresher platform—is exactly the right kind of step for the Obama reelection team to stay one step ahead in the digital arena.
I’m looking forward to seeing how it evolves.
He’ll have hundreds of millions of dollars, the bully pulpit, Air Force One and high-profile supporters from Warren Buffet to Lady Gaga behind him. But President Obama’s chances of re-election could come down to a single strategic question: To what degree can the history of 2004 be repeated in 2012?