Category Archives: Debunking Politicos Pundits + Spin

Hold On A Second…That Sign Looks Like It Was Photoshopped, Mr. Mayor!

gavinsignfake.jpgSo, it seems Mr. Mayor Whatshisname has a new campaign video out. I guess nowadays posting something on YouTube is a really big deal, and this is like, way Web 2.0 campaigning and all Obama-like and whatnot. Fine.
However, I find this video interesting. but not for a reason Team Newsom might like. You see, I was noticing that suddenly the Mayor is supportive of a “Constitutional Convention” to reform our state’s government. This is an idea popular with the liberal types, the conservative types, the business-y types, and political bloggers. So now I guess he’s on board. Um, woo hoo?
What’s funny is while watching this video (with the older, cooler logos from earlier this year) I saw this image at 0:24, and it made me wonder out loud if this thing was photoshopped in some way. I didn’t recall seeing any old Newsom 1.0 signs with “Constitutional Convention” on ’em before, and I’m nerdy enough to notice and keep track of things like that. What really got my attention was how oddly colored this is compared to other elements in the video.
Anyway, I figure the good people on the blogs can pick this apart and have fun with it. Maybe I’m right and maybe not. But the great thing about The Internet is you can always pose a question and let others do the heavy lifting.
UPDATE: It seems great minds do think alike and our friend MattyMatt noticed the same thing also.
Mainstream media? Gavin Newsom? You got some ‘splainin’ to do! 😉

Let’s Show Gavin Newsom How Crowdsourcing Is Supposed To Work

image.php.jpegSo the other day I ranked on “Mayor” Newsom’s gubernatorial logo crowdsourcing efforts, something I still stand by. I mean, not to go all Don Draper on this, but this selection is a joke. I say this with many years of experience conceiving and executing mail and online campaigns. And as I’ve said before, although I personally do not do design, I know how to talk to creative people in the design field to execute good products.
After talking to several colleagues, we all agreed that perhaps this might be an opportunity to show how crowdsourcing is done properly. Now while I can’t offer cash prizes for submissions, I DO have a couple of projects coming up soon that will need some work, and I’m interested in casting a wide net for talent.
So, in the spirit of Being Constructive and Having Fun, I’m putting out a call for my own Gavin Newsom Logo. Here are the design parameters I’d like you to consider:
-Since we’re not the official campaign, we’re going to go with “Go Gavin Newsom!” as our slogan/logo/whatever.
-Stylewise, I’m looking for something that’s pop-culture aware, but not too cutesy
-The artwork has to be easily seen from a distance (signs) and reproduce well on a variety of media (t shirts, stickers, mousepads, signs, etc)
-Irony, humor, satire and so on are welcome if done well
-If you use the Obama Font, do so carefully. It’s already overdone as is, so show me something new.
Personally, my biggest wish in the political mail business was to do a bio of a candidate in the style of a 70s action movie poster (you know the one where they have scenes of the movie behind the main actor, all popping out at you from the center), but no one ever went for it. I suppose action scenes of commission meetings and speaking out at public comments time aren’t as cool to detail as chasing bad guys in a speedboat in Louisiana.

The Graphic Design Abortions Known as the “Choices” in Gavin Newsom’s Logo “Contest”

Ack! By the time I got home to write this, Everyone Else already blogged something way cooler. Curses!
418216434_8b199a59b4_m.jpgBy now, the Newsom for Governor campaign has spent so much time believing its own hype and that their candidate walks on water, it’s almost a bit painful to critique ’em because they’re punishing themselves just fine. Today, I got a way-too-enthusiastic email from a John Hughes movie villain asking me (yes me!) and everyone else on their list to “vote” for a campaign logo! Oh wow! So web 2.0!
Now, mind you, Newsom had a campaign logo earlier this year at the convention and there was nothing wrong with it at all. In fact, it was kinda nice in that it didn’t look like a typical campaign logo (and it had a URL, Facebook and Twitter logos on it too!) They even had this totally SF hipster tee for sale too for the folks in Sacramento.
But following in the footsteps of Steve Westly and Barbara Boxer, who also offered similar “vote for the logo and be empowered” nonsense, they’re doing this to keep people busy and avoid thinking too much about his actual record or mysterious relatives. I guess if you’ve been cooped up in a war room for the duration it sounds really “out there.”
Fine. But like Westly and Boxer, the choices offered are so crap-tacular, the designer(s) who came up with these should be sent to remedial design school or something. Sure, I am not a designer myself. I have, however, done some award winning creative on direct mail and on the web, because while I can’t draw a picture, I work with some of the best people in the business, and we come up with kick ass shit. Sterling Cooper can kiss our ass.
Before I pick apart these things, one by one, the way one might pick apart a really bad something or other, it’s clear that these are all variants on a very narrow theme.
They all obscure his name a little in some weird way (“ooh he’s the new thing on the horizon, dear!”) and few of them reproduce well in a variety of mediums (the the green one in particular has hideous typography and can’t easily be seen at a distance) If they want the mob to pick a design, fine, but at least have some decent choices so that they don’t end up with a stinker.
Ok, now to the nitpicking, Internet style:




The second worst one of the bunch. The fade in the middle makes this an especially difficult design to reproduce in print, or in black and white on flyers. There’s no URL for the website, Twitter and Facebook (oh wait, the new guys can’t make 15% off of those so I guess those are out), and in almost all these designs there’s a maniacal focus on obscuring part of the guy’s name. This is not edgy design, people, this is just stupid.

Now this seems to combine weird pieces of the second and fourth logos, and again, it doesn’t work. The typeface is way way too thin to be noticed from a distance, and the weird faux sun ray effect simply does not work. If you’re gonna do the whole sunrise, new dawn, new day bullshit, do it right.

This one is a favorite of my good friend Brock at SFist who makes an excellent point about the whole Manchurian Candidate vibe. However, between the blood red color and this fetish for thin, white typefaces, this doesn’t come close to say, Dianne Feinstein’s standard designs, which have been used in one form or another since 1990.

This last one is a doozy. Where to start? Ok, I get it, it’s a green sign because, oh right, he’s the Mr. Green Jeans of the campaign, running around telling everyone what to do about their recycling, all the while driving a gas guzzler and killing Muni back at home. Right.
Fine, but this looks less like a campaign logo, and more like something we’d see in Gavin’s private life, when he partners with Lisa Simpson to start a company to recycle animals into slurry. I’m sure this got points in the war room for “not looking political” (um, like the original) but that’s half the battle, kids. You have to “not look political” and also “not look like crap.”
So far it looks like the consensus amongst the cool kids is for “the wed wone,” If this is any sign of things to come, in the wake of Streetsbloggate, all I can say is go, Gavin go. I need a respite from the day job’s work, and let’s face it, Gavin’s provided enough blog fertilizer in the past to let a thousand blogs bloom. Yes We Can!
UPDATE So today I got this little email from the “campaign manager” talking about all the excitement over this cool, edgy contest:

Dear Friend,
It’s been a fun couple of days with the launch of our online logo contest. So far we’ve had over 6,000 total votes and the comments have been pouring in.
Elisa from Facebook said, “Let’s be bold and go with red!”
Greg said, “I love the green one.”
Jenny on Twitter thought the logo with the white background, navy and sun said, “new day, new way.”
As of this email, the logo with the white background, blue lettering and yellow sun is in the lead but the dark blue logo with the yellow sun is close behind.
Thanks to everyone for participating and giving us your feedback – we’ve been following the commentary and have seen some great ideas.
Voting is open until Sunday at midnight. So, if you have not voted, now is the time.
Cast your vote and help us pick the official Newsom campaign logo.
Sincerely,
Nick Clemons
Campaign Manager
Newsom for California
P.S. To stay connected, join with over 1 million supporters on www.GavinNewsom.com, Facebook and Twitter.

Wait, so out of over “one million supporters” online, only 6000 have voted? Hmm..lessee…that’s .006% of this online army he bragged about not too long ago….WOW. Work that online mojo, Gavster!
As I’ve said before, you can get into a numbers war on Twitter, et al, but it’s all meaningless if they don’t do anything.
And for the record, THIS Greg thinks the green logo sucks ass.

To Hear The Crazies on the Left and Right, We Either Elected Dumbledore or Voldemort!

There’s some new show on ABC coming out, “Fast Forward,” where everyone in the world passes out for 2 minutes, then wakes up with visions of the future. I’m beginning to wonder if some variant on that, perhaps a nation-wide “time out” is needed for America to chill the frak out and dial down the screaming crazy that passes for politics these days.
To hear the crazies on the Right, we’ve elected Voldemort, and it’s time to send bullying mobs out to beat up anyone and smash up cars for anyone that dares express an opinion that’s not politically correct, according to the folks in DC, talk radio or whatever. Apparently we also need to freak out about every single thing the President does. Oh noes! He had dijon mustard! ZOMG! He drank a beer! OMG! He’s just like a guy who killed millions of people in World War II and I better scream and yell and cry and act like an idiot! Oh no! A non-white guy is in charge – that means it’s time for us to lose our sh*t and act like maniacs because THAT’S NOT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN.
Eeeyah. These are people I want in charge. Not.
The Republicans have lost it in the same way the liberals lost it when Reagan got elected – maybe even more so. There are plenty of valid criticisms of the current President, and they should be aired. But to go to the crazy “stoke the fire” extremes make them look as loony tunes as the folks on the left or those stupid trustafarians who throw rocks at endless war protests? Not exactly making yourself look like you should be running anything but a 2 car parade. (BTW, the right had no problem calling any person who disagreed with Bush anti-American – suddenly that’s not ok anymore now that the Prez is Not A Republican?)
Likewise, the lefty types are a bit tiresome, particularly those in liberal bastions, who are screaming and yelling that Obama has not waved his magic wand, changed the country overnight into a liberal utopia, unicorns aren’t jumping over rainbows and all is perfect. Give me a break. The guy’s been in office what, 7 months? He inherits the economic equivalent of a row of crackhouses, post-raid, and is doing clean up. He’s got boneheaded Democrats in Congress who could care less about him, and care more about collecting some lobbyist bucks, and hey, he’s the new guy. To start screaming and yelling that every single thing hasn’t changed overnight is stupid.
Finally, I’ll say this – the double talk on both sides needs to stop. If it’s not ok to bully people, smash up autos, and scream obscenities and act like an overall asshole, then it’s NOT OK. I don’t give a hoot who you are. It’s not ok when it’s right wing bullies, spurred on by talk radio, and it’s not ok when it’s left wing bullies, spurred on by the Internet and whatnot. Until we stop this whole “it’s ok if it’s my guys doing it and not ok if your guys are doing it” mentality, we’re gonna get nowhere. (Remember when Bush was president how you were told by the right if you opposed the President you were “un-American?” What changed…oh yeah, right.)
As for me, i just tune out the nutjobs on all sides. The boorish thug bellowing about birth certificates or death panels is not worth paying attention to at this point. The boorish thug bellowing about how Obama hasn’t made us a socialist paradise and used his magic powers to change the USA overnight is a fool as well. Those that offer constructive, realistic solutions to fixing this country, however, are folks I wanna hear from, on any side.

50,000,000 Facebook Fans Can’t Be Wrong – If They’re Organized Effectively

There’s no doubt that in the political campaign world, Facebook is the Bright Shiny Thing everyone’s got their eyes on, especially since a first-term Senator from Illinois won the presidency last year. But all this activity triggers a question that doesn’t have an easy answer: How many campaigns are actually using Facebook effectively, and how many are just wasting their time?
Case Study: The Race to Get Lots of “Friends” and “Fans” on Facebook. If you’re on Facebook for more than 5 minutes, you know how easy it is to passively express affinity for anyone, or anything. Maybe you see a friend has become a “fan” of (Not Being on Fire, ESPN, Flipping the Pillow Over To Get To The Cool Side, Batman, some cool local blog, and so on) and within a couple of clicks of the mouse, you join the bandwagon. It’s fun, and it’s a social “me-too” function that’s an integral part of Facebook.
After Barack Obama’s much-publicized efforts to collect Facebook friends, politicians and their advisors have jumped on this. Now it’s common to see candidates for office engage in a “friend recruitment war,” sending out repeated pleas to their supporters to “get more friends” for them, and to hit some magic target. As this desperate struggle for “more friends” continues, politicians risk looking less like capable leaders in difficult times, and more like insecure teenagers running for Homecoming King or Queen instead.
More importantly , these drives to “get more friends and fans” on Facebook miss the potential power of social networking for campaigns as a field organizing tool, not a popularity contest. Obama’s efforts on Facebook were part of a larger effort that combined field work – on and off Facebook – and took advantage of the medium’s novelty. Today, when Facebook is larger and more established, it’s much less important if politician has thousands of “fans” on Facebook. That’s particularly true if none of them do anything offline to help out the campaign effort.
However, if a campaign only has a few hundred “fans,” with every one of those fans knocking on doors in their hometown, raising money, and telling their friends – on and offline – about the campaign, the candidate will be doing a lot better where it really counts – at the polls on Election Day.
If political consultants want to help their clients the most with social media, they need to look at social networking not as a gimmick, bolted on to a traditional campaign plan, but instead as an extension of their field plan, just done online.
Using Facebook (and Twitter and other social networking sites) and their many tools to identify, recruit and organize supporters online, is great. Giving them something meaningful to do, will ensure that their campaigns are more successful than the insecure teenager begging for more friends.
UPDATE: In 2010, this article about how the number of Twitter followers does NOT equal influence did some hard research proving this point. Go read it now! Especially if you cover politicians who blab on about Twitter like they know what they’re doing.

Twittering The California Democratic Convention

What few readers out there that still read this blog may recall we launched this blog at the CDP Convention in 2006 in Sacramento. I’m up here now mostly for my day job, but I’m also posting Twitter updates, which can be found at my Twitter page. In fact I’m at the “Jerry Brown 2010 Social Networking” booth with the Governor as I post this.
I’ll be tagging tweets with #cdp09 for easy searching, too! Thanks for following!

TMZ and The Chronicle Read My Mind: Cover Politicians!

Well that was funny to read this morning…it seems that gossip gurus TMZ.com are going to start applying their style of journalism to politicos as it warrants, much as they do celebrities in Hollywood.
To which I say “Thank God!”
I actually posted a zany little blog missive on this very issue just over a year ago but was serious – TMZ.com doesn’t seem to mind pissing off the folks in Hollywood, and they always seemed to be on the scene.
Maybe if we could get TMZ and some awesome investigative reporters to tag team our folks in government, we’d really get something there. The TMZ.com folks could be the shock and awe troops to zing ’em when they drive their SUVs to Earth Day, and the investigative folks could get paid well to do the kind of reporting you need from Real Journalists once the target’s been acquired.
Hey, it couldn’t hurt, right?
PS: I bet it would make money too. Grab the readers with the TMZ takedown, keep the eyes on the site for the tough reporting. I’d definitely pay for THAT.

Another “Dog Poo” Policy Obama Has to Clean Up: The Bungled DTV Switch!

UPDATE: Friday’s LA Times has more on this story….
Which “dog poo” policy left behind by the Bush Adminstration will give the incoming Obama Administration the biggest short-term hit? War? Economy? Terrorism? Maybe.
If I had to bet, I’d put my money on the federal government’s bungling conversion to Digital Television (DTV) broadcasts less than a month after Obama’s inauguration. In typical Bush Administration fashion, they managed to craft a plan that combines the worst qualities of Big Government and Big Business, and has resulted in billions of dollars wasted, and a public that’s going to have a nasty surprise when they try to watch television on Feburary 17th.
President Elect Obama has wisely asked Congress to extend the deadline to try and put a bandage on this wound, but Congress, in typical fashion, never seem to feel the need to act on anything that would beneft, you know, us (but they sure got it in gear to hand over billions to the banking industry, which has proceeded to sit on our money).
On paper this made some sense: DTV converter boxes, which you’ll need to continue to receive over the air TV, tend to cost between $50-$75. Give everyone a $40 coupon, and you cut the price to an average of $20. People go online (!), get a coupon, and use it within a 3 month window (otherwise it expires). People can go to any retailer and buy a box, and plug it into their TV.
For someone like me, who is aware of these things, it worked fine. I can now get more channels and I don’t pay a monthly fee to the villains of Comcast or AT&T. However, for a lot of folks, especially those who aren’t online or haven’t read up on the details of the program, it hasn’t gone as well. Cable TV of course is happy to tell you all will be well if you just buy cable TV – and make it seem like you MUST buy cable to watch television.
Recent reports indicate that most people are at best confused as to what is happening with DTV (thanks in part to deceptive ads for cable and satellite service). The program to subsidize DTV boxes is running out of money, thanks to both poor accounting procedures, and the fact that people are picking up the coupons to buy a DTV box, but aren’t using them on time. Now, the feds have a growing waiting list right at the time when the program needs to gear up for the final rush.
It’s pretty clear what is going to happen on Februrary 17th – a large number of people are going to realize they can’t watch TV anymore and they’re going to take it out on President Obama and Congress, even though it was the outgoing administration that came up with this hybrid policy of FAIL. Worse, the federales will have failed the people on one of its most basic of duties – managing the public airwaves for the public good.
It is in the national interest to have broadcast services that do not require hundreds of dollars in monthly “fees”, and to have broadcast services that can operate in an emergency. Not everyone wants or can afford pricey cable or satellite tv, and some of us just don’t like ’em, period.
By inventing a new way to loot the public good for the benefit of the few, the Bush crew is laughing all the way to the bank, and it’s at your expense.

PS: Here’s a short and easy list of what to do, or not do, as the case may be for TV, per many requests:
-If you already have cable TV, you don’t need to do anything, just keep paying Comcast the bill.
-If you have purchased a TV with a tuner (be it a standard TV or HDTV) in the last few years, it most likely has a digital TV tuner built in. Check the manual and see if it has an “ATSC” tuner built in. (Be aware that many HDTV sets are really just glorified monitors, with NO tuner at all!)
-Also note – you don’t need an expensive High Definition TV to watch digital television. Your normal tv can see the picture (with a converter or with a digital tuner built in) – just not at as high a resolution as that pricey HD one. Just as you could watch color broadcasts on a black and white tv, and so on.
-If you have an older TV, you’ll need a DTV converter box, which attaches to the back of the old TV. You can find them at most electronics stores, like Radio Shack.
If you can get your hands on a $40 coupon from the federal government, it should cost you around $20. They’re not too hard to set up (it’s like setting up a video game console), and they are all pretty much the same. I got one from Zenith and it works fine.
The various acronyms and the like get confusing (i.e. DTV vs. HDTV), but just remember – you do not need to buy a High Definition TV to watch Digital TV. You can watch DTV on any old tv you can hook up that converter box to. And if you have cable, you need not do anything but keep on paying the bill!

Is This REALLY The Best Way To Make Serious Energy Policy Decisions?

Presidential election years bring with them not only a Big Decision about who will lead our country, but a plethora of ballot measures at the state and local level. This year is no exception – we’re being asked to vote on a tremendous amount of policy questions (and in SF, a lot of non-binding “feel good” resolutions that have no power at all). In particular, however, voters are being asked to make some pretty major decisions about energy policy at the local level, and with 2 state propositions.
Energy policy is a complicated question at best, and our state’s experience with the disastrous “deregulation” scheme should have been a warning about the dangers of politics in energy policy. We were promised lower rates and competitive energy providers – instead we had Enron and others driving up costs and causing rolling blackouts when there was no reason for them.
Now, we’re being asked to make some serious decisions this November, and while the campaigns all use the language of Good Intentions, all seem to be hiding something in the details. People are right to be concerned about global warming and our dependence on oil from unstable regions of the world. Unfortunately, the three measures we’re being asked to vote on contradict each other, or hide what they’re really about.
Prop. H, on the San Francisco ballot, claims to be about requiring the City to use clean energy sources in the future. It even has produced campaign commercials online that claim the support of Sen. Obama and Vice President Gore for the measure (even though neither has endorsed it). More importantly, though, the measure is not really about clean energy at all – it is all about a public takeover of the power system from PG&E. Ironically, PG&E has signed the world’s largest contracts for solar and wind power – but that’s something Measure H backers won’t tell you.
There is no reason why the two should be connected at all – yet the promoters of Prop. H are playing off people’s good intentions to pass something else – and give the City the authority to take over any “utility” – even if it has nothing to do with power generation.
Likewise, Propositions 7 and 10 make many similar green promises about clean energy. What’s strange, though is that many people already in the business of providing solar or wind power oppose these, because they were written to benefit specific companies or people (such as T. Boone Pickens, the right wing oil billionaire). Even an expert would have a hard time decoding what these things really do or do not do, so it’s hard to imagine how we, the people are supposed to make a decision about this when we have our daily lives to lead and so on.
It is too bad that our Governor and our Legislature are busy posturing and politicking to perhaps come up with one comprehensive energy strategy for California, one that helps us reduce carbon emissions and provides us with stable energy supplies we need to compete globally. This patchwork of local and state measures, none of which seem to coordinate with each other, is a recipe for another energy mess like we had in the past, and it’s time citizens demanded more from our supposed leaders.
I have to believe with all the smart people we have in California, be they from academia, business, the technology sector, and so on we can’t come up with a better way to make good energy policy that will leave a positive legacy for ourselves and our planet, instead of this hodge podge of politically motivated ballot measures.

Why Does McCain Have To Lie So Much In His Ads?

Why does McCain have to lie so much in his ads? Is his campaign in that much trouble?
C’mon, John, you were supposed to be the “good” Republican. What happened?