President 2.0

Over the last two years, there has been a tremendous amount written about the forces or trends that came together--or perhaps it's fair to say that President-elect Obama harnessed--on election night earlier this week. Here are a few ideas that I haven't seen discussed extensively:

Howard Dean's role in Obama's victory. Dean's 50 state strategy paid very handsome dividends in this election, both for Obama and the Democrats in general. But it was the combination of this strategy with the means to extend one's reach that proved most powerful. Dean's strategy of tapping into internet-based fundraising in 2004 was visionary. Obama clearly took this to the next level. In addition to fundraising, so-called Web 2.0 technologies have proven to be a powerful, alternative news medium and communication channel. Obama's advertisements on XBox Live as compared to McCain's statement about trying "a Google" speaks volumes about their respective understanding of building community in this age--and controlling one's image. Remember George Allen in 2006? The mainstream media in 2004 contributed to destroying Howard Dean's image with the incessant playing and replaying of the video of his infamous scream.

Is it a coincidence that Obama seemingly went out of his way to keep his cool throughout the campaign?

I have no doubt that the same mainstream media that continuously questioned whether Obama was "too cool" would have chewed him up if he had one of those "Dean scream" moments during the campaign. Obama's impressive management of both mainstream and new media was critical toward his victory.

John Edwards' role in Obama's victory. His "two Americas" theme eventually gained enough traction to become one of the major themes in this campaign, ultimately manifesting itself as the "Wall Street" vs. "Main Street" comparison. Obama's choice of $250k as the dividing line was somewhat risky, but it turned out to be a figure that worked for most people (please, don't mention Joe the Plumber). During the Democratic primaries, when Edwards challenged his fellow candidates to forgo financial support from lobbyists--and Hillary Clinton refused--it gave Obama an important point of leverage. It's too bad Edwards' personal choices were not as thoughtful. It's also too bad that the candidates didn't seem to embrace Kussinich's challenge to forgo financial support from hedge funds.

Henry Paulson's (albeit inadvertent) role in Obama's victory. Paulson's decision to let Lehmann Brothers fail and then react with the $700 billion bailout "proposal" (one Congressman apparently pointed out that at 3 pages, Paulson was asking for about $1 billion a word through his original document) started the cascading series of events that showed everyone the emperor is not wearing any clothes. Would we have noticed if Lehmann Brothers had been bailed out? Might the charade have continued long enough to last through election day?

No doubt that mistakes or ill-advised strategies of the McCain/Palin camp contributed to Obama's victory. I don't want to dwell on those mistakes. Perhaps I'm embracing President-elect Obama's urging to move past our differences. But I can't resist returning to one point in particular. The idea of "real America" (in this respect, perhaps George Allen could be thought of as a "visionary"). Consider the following results (as of Friday, November 7):

Obama: 364 electoral college votes and 65,319,143 popular votes
McCain: 163 electoral college votes and 57,349,323 popular votes

There's your real America. Your United States of America.

In the end, of course, no one deserves more credit for his victory than Obama himself. He built on strong foundations established by his predecessors and colleagues, engaged and energized the community through new means, appreciated the complexities of our economic crisis, persisted with the message of a unified country, and spoke eloquently with accessible, inspiring words. No one can know whether he possesses the considerable talents, skills, and leadership we will need to navigate the rough seas ahead. But anyone who ran this type of campaign certainly inspires hope.

John Tierney Weighs In on The World Cup

In his op-ed piece in today's New York Times, John Tierney talks about "kicking the soccer habit." Tierney mentions that he lived in Chile as a child, during which time he played soccer and watched Brazil electrify the soccer world during the 1962 World Cup. So this is someone who had found--and has apparently lost--religion. He makes some very good points about the difficulty of watching soccer on TV. It's hard to see much of the field, to note the runs off the ball, the way in which defenses align themselves, and the great vision of the gifted passers in the game. Hockey also suffers some of these problems on TV. Watching soccer and hockey on HD makes a big difference. How many of us are putting up with ESPN/ABC's coverage because of HD?

Tierney asserts that "American couch potatoes" enjoy the breaks in baseball, basketball or football because it allows them to watch instant replays, or evaluate (i.e., second guess) the coach's decisions or strategies, and that the actions of individuals (e.g., "the pitcher dueling the batter") are more clearly pronounced and enjoyed. When speaking about the rest of the world's fascination with soccer, he states: "maybe they love soccer because they haven't been given better alternatives."

I think he's right that many folks in the US, including me, prefer sitting on a couch, living vicariously through athletes, and second guessing the coaches. Once upon a time, I used to actually participate in athletics. And I can tell you it's infinitely preferable. As I move slovenly and inevitably toward becoming overweight and unhealthy, I realize maybe I should participate in sports, rather than passively consume them. If you've ever kicked around a soccer ball, and tried to play on any reasonably sized field for any length of time, you get a deep appreciation for the skill and stamina of soccer players.

I don't doubt for a moment that sports fans in the US marvel at individual athletic accomplishments. The US canonizes the individual, sometimes at the cost of the community. The superstar athlete can act any way he wishes as long as he can make the great play. Manchester United and England defender Rio Ferdinand was suspended for eight months when he missed a drug test. Would a US-based athlete face such a suspension for his first offense? Ferdinand didn't get to play for a team in Toronto during his suspension either (and I say this as someone who cheers for the Miami Dolphins while sitting on my couch).

As for not having any alternatives to soccer, quite frankly, I don't know what Tierney is talking about. There are several other sports with fairly widespread interest such as rugby, ice hockey, field hockey and handball. I don't appreciate a sport that has "numerous intervals for lunch and tea", but even cricket has widespread appeal. If you've ever watched TV coverage of the Olympics or read the sports pages of a newspaper in Europe or Asia, you will quickly realize that they actually enjoy athletics, even when their national teams are not competitive. Imagine actually being able to watch Olympic sporting events in their entirety, instead of only the portions that are "relevant" to the US. There are so many cases of individual nations that revere other sports with local appeal. The Aussies have shown a real appreciation for soccer, but Australian rules football and swimming are almost certainly more popular sports down under.

As a global community, there are many, many things we can and should do that are much more important than soccer. But maybe the rest of the world enjoys soccer because it's a chance for the entire planet to share an experience, express themselves, and celebrate regardless of whether their team wins or not.

Tierney admits that part of his frustration stems from the referee's penalty decision during the US-Ghana match. In my opinion, that was a really bad call. Deal with it. It's time to admit that the US World Cup basically ended when Czech Republic beat them soundly in the first game, and that Bruce Arena probably over-analzyed and under-inspired this team in critical ways.

I think it's hard enough for people in the US to watch a sport without dominating it, but it seems even harder to watch a sport in which we can't overturn results or decisions through replays, appeals and legal actions.