white house

There's a lot that can be said for someone who hasn't before ever done serious beltway work jumping in with both feet... especially among a community as diverse and unique as young voters. So I was sad to see that Kalpen Modi was on his way out.

"I think for most young folks who I'm talking to, it doesn't matter if they're on the left or the right, the issues that they cared about were the same," he said. "It is a kind of bummer if you look at the score keeping on the Hill ... and what we have been focusing on is getting folks on the same page, focusing on the solutions."

I'm a pretty big score keeper when it comes to the outreach I wish the White House had done to young people. This isn't necessarily to do with the Public Liaison's office its more on policy issues. You've heard me say before that the only demographic that supported and continued to support the President during the horrible TeaBagger Summer of 2009 was young people but we were never brought in to be advocates on HCR. The same could be said about the energy bill - except it was non-profit groups that did the proper outreach to youth.

Kalpen Modi's outreach has been good. He's done what the OPL does best - they do outreach and round tables and discussions and people discuss. It just doesn't translate into communications messaging, event outreach, or press that trickles down to the college newspaper level.

"Our office doesn't handle policy, but we help bridge the gap between policies," Penn explained. "So if there's a group that's particularly concerned with an issue, and they want to bring in 10 or 12 folks, we'll put them in a room with some of our policy team and they'll link up that way."

Therein lies the problem. I wish Kalpen was experienced and more schooled in these areas so that we could have put him in a policy role so you'd have a youth advocate among those folks. Because this team of people seems so far removed from the struggles facing young people that it's caused a lot of problems when it comes to messaging to young people or making them into advocates for the President's political agenda.

He touches briefly on this in the video above but he also says that a lot of people assumed that change would happen immediately - we would see immediate results like a switch is flicked. Kalpen says it doesn't work that way. And he's right. In our generation we're use to immediate results, immediate interaction, quick now quick now.... Government doesn't work that way - in fact it's the antithesis of how government works works. But as much as I would like to see immediate results - it's probably a good idea that it doesn't work that way otherwise any yahoo could come on there and sink our government into complete terror and destruction. Luckily it took Bush 8 years to do that. It's going to take some time to fix unfortunately. I just wish the WH would consider young people to be an ally in that fight

David Brooks argued the other day that Stanley McChrystal's now-famous comments should have never been made public. Brooks laments the inability of today's elite figures to "kvetch," to blow off some steam with underlings in response to their tough lives.

General McChrystal was excellent at his job. He had outstanding relations with the White House and entirely proper relationships with his various civilian partners in the State Department and beyond. He set up a superb decision-making apparatus that deftly used military and civilian expertise.

But McChrystal, like everyone else, kvetched. And having apparently missed the last 50 years of cultural history, he did so on the record, in front of a reporter. And this reporter, being a product of the culture of exposure, made the kvetching the center of his magazine profile.

By putting the kvetching in the magazine, the reporter essentially took run-of-the-mill complaining and turned it into a direct challenge to presidential authority. He took a successful general and made it impossible for President Obama to retain him.

The reticent ethos had its flaws. But the exposure ethos, with its relentless emphasis on destroying privacy and exposing impurities, has chased good people from public life, undermined public faith in institutions and elevated the trivial over the important.

I understand Brooks's argument here. And I do think "gotcha journalism" is a major fault of today's politics, dissuading many an ideal public servant from running for office or even getting involved.

However, Brooks' line of thinking in this context is problematic. First, it is a symptom of another large problem with our politics: the media's cozy relationship with those in office. As Andrew Sullivan wrote this week (as well as Frank Rich today), it's problematic we did not hear more about McChrystal sooner. Though Brooks tries to get away with painting McChrystal as an angel who enjoyed great relations with the White House, that's not the case. And despite McChrystal's penchant for risky behavior, Obama continued to provide him with all he could want.

That leads me to the second problem with Brooks' column. The public has a right to know when a general jeopardizes a mission funded by their tax dollars, especially a mission that is a part of the longest war in this country's history. This wasn't run of the mill complaining, either. McChrystal again challenged the authority of the President's administration, and he did so with considerable audacity.

Brooks seems to be doing the compartmentalizing Harry Boyte, from yesterday's post, rejects. Brooks assumes that because we're all fallible as humans, we all should be given time to indulge our inner monster, to spew a few choice words to no particular audience. Unfortunately, we don't live in that vacuum. Everything is political, whether we like it or not.

But in this particular situation, Hastings, the Rolling Stone reporter who embarrassed the traditional media, did the right thing. McChrystal's comments illustrated a pattern of behavior that undermined civilian authority over the United States military. Hastings did not make it impossible for Obama to retain his general, as Brooks argues; McChrystal did it himself.

The White House announced today that the President will be speaking at a High School Commencement. "Race to the Top" is a competition - one school will be selected from applicants to receive a visit from the President. Principals of public high schools can apply for the "Commencement Challenge" online.

Six schools will be selected from the applicants by the White House and Department of Education. They will be posted on whitehouse.gov and the public will have the chance to vote for three to move forward. The President himself will choose the winning school from among these three finalists.

The application includes several essay questions and a video submission, giving local administrators the chance to get their students and teachers involved in the process of applying.

The White House has also set up a Facebook page specifically for "Race to The Top".

Pretty cool stuff, I think. High School students should let their administrators know about this.

Earlier today President Obama answered questions submitted through CitizenTube via the White House Live Facebook application.

I had hoped to have the video from the question and answer session to embed here, and have been waiting for it since CitizenTube hours ago claimed that it would be available shortly, but unfortunately it is not yet posted. (I'll add it once it is, whenever that may be).

I was pleased for the most part with the question selection, which included questions about Sudan (an area many Millennials are interested in), net neutrality, college affordability, and one from the Energy Action Coalition about clean energy and the environment.

As for the execution of the session, the video quality was a little choppy and would occasionally stop, requiring a refresh, but the chat/status posting discussion was a nice touch.

On the whole I think the session was a great move and fits in with my belief in taking your message to the places where people live and hang out (even virtually), and Facebook is certainly one of those places.

What are your thoughts about the President's Q&A over Facebook? What would you like to see next time?

I am super-excited about the White House finally doing some major promotion for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education programs. They just launched a campaign called “Educate to Innovate”. It’s goal is to increase participation in these programs, through the work of the federal government, major corporations, non-profits, and other organizations.

Although there weren’t a lot of specifics about the campaign, it was announced that the White House will be partnering with Time-Warner, Discovery Channel, Sesame Street, Sally Ride, and other organizations and science-engineering big shots to make sure that American students are excited about science and math.

The President says that it is the goal of his administration to ‘move to the top in science and math education’ and that this campaign will be part of working towards this goal. During his speech, he mentioned that private companies have already committed more than $260 million.

One exciting element of the campaign was an after school program with FIRST Robotics, which I’ve had some experience with. I know it to be a great opportunity for students to learn in a hands-on way…and it gives them somewhere to go, and something safe to do, during the after-school hours.

Another program being launched - an annual White House Science Fair for students. The President spoke about how NCAA athletes visit the White House, and so should young scientists and engineers who are finding success in their fields.

The President spoke about the importance of hard work for students, support from parents, and a strong basic education system to work along with these specialized STEM programs. He told a brief story about meeting with the Mayor of Shanghai, where he learned of how teachers in his city were treated – with reverence and respect. There is no problem recruiting them because they are payed nearly as much as an average doctor or lawyer, which of course makes perfect sense.

Students from a local high school demonstrated a robot they built as part of a STEM program…and the President was genuinely interested. I feel like this program will be a great step forward in the Obama Administration’s Education Policy and I hope it succeeds in getting students excited about STEM and providing them with the knowledge to innovate for the future.

The White House Blog did a post about the program and Education Secretary Arne Duncan took questions from the online community. Here is the full text of the President’s remarks.

Jared Bernstein is an American economist who has been designated Chief Economist and Economic Policy Adviser to Vice President Joe Biden in the Obama Administration. Bernstein was formerly a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute and is author to the book Crunch: Why Do I Feel So Squeezed? (And other Unsolved Economic Mysteries).

His last book was All Together Now: Common Sense for a Fair Economy. He is also the co-author of eight editions of the book State of Working America and has published extensivly in popular and academic venues. He is a frequent contributor to the cable station CNBC and holds a PhD in Social Welfare from Columbia University. He was also the one that was cut off by the moderator.

Notable comments:

"You don't get from the deepest recession since the depression in a few weeks days or months even. . . I think there is this kind of meme being adapted - if unemployment is rising therefore the recovery act isn't working. There is no stimulus plan that could offset the greatest recession and the trillions of dollars in debt that the US is in.

"We are not at "Mission Accomplished" until we are fully putting people back to work and fully out of the woods."

"And, less bad is not the bar we seek to clear."

Part 1

Part 2

• The Kent County GOP has gotten hip to Drinking Liberally and is using a similar model to engage local youth.
• Here's a new iPhone app that will let you track the voting records of elected officials.
• danah boyd answers all the questions you had about teens and social media use.
• Campus Progress has video from their latest panel on Millennial Politics.
• Rock the Vote looks at how credit cards are keeping young people down.
• Roll Call discusses how the passage of Civil Rights was the beginning of the end for the GOP.
• Peter Levine critiques the White House Office of Public Engagement.
• Do Young Folks Need Celebrities To Tell Them How To Vote?

Want to intern at the White House? Submit your application here. You better have some $$$$ though, because the White House doesn't have any scratch to help you with housing or transportation.

Really????

In an executive order Thursday following the National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama announced the revamping of the White House's Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

After the breakfast he announced an executive order establishing the new White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and talked about the role faith-based and secular community organizations will play in our economic recovery.

"People trust them. Communities rely on them. And we will help them," he said.

The President named Joshua DuBois to lead the office, and also announced the creation of the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships -- a group of 25 religious and secular leaders, listed below.

"Whether it's connecting groups that are training people to do new jobs, or figuring out the role of faith-based organizations in combating global climate change, this office creates those partnerships in a way that's responsible, constitutional, and -- bottom line -- helps those in need," DuBois said.

DuBois continues to talk about the new office in this video, provided by the White House.

Working with Faith from White House on Vimeo.

It looks like President Obama will continue to develop opportunities for Americans to serve their respective communities, this time by energizing churches and faith-based communities. This move completes a campaign promise, in which Obama pledged to create a commitment to a "real partnership -- not a photo-op."

I'm curious as to whether this might create an opportunity for churches to revitalize efforts to court younger members for their congregations by embracing service and community work. With the Obama brand and community work popular among Millennials, perhaps President Obama is providing churches and faith-based communities some assistance in evangelizing younger members. Any thoughts?

The Obama campaign fact sheet regarding this office/policy can be found here.

A profound post by Matt Compton at Democratic Strategist questions whether the Presidential Records Act that Congress passed in 1978 is applicable in today's internet-based office environment.

Email had been invented seven years earlier in a project funded by the Department of Defense, but it's hard to imagine that the authors of the Presidential Records Act could have foreseen a government which put instant, electronic communication into widespread use. To ask anyone at the time to imagine the sprawling, interconnected world of the Internet as it is today would have been laughable.

And yet this 1978 law still dictates how the executive branch does business.

During the election, the Obama campaign was deeply immersed in the world of the Internet, and we've spent a lot of time talking about the brilliance of the external online strategy. But much less has been made of how well Obama for America as an organization used the Web internally.

Staffers used online tools to share documents, built wikis to train volunteers, used Facebook to build get to know each other. And throughout it all, the staff -- from David Axlerod on down -- maintained a continuous conversation through instant messenger.

It now looks, however, like that practice will be put to an end.

Citing both the requirements of the Presidential Records Act and security concerns, lawyers for the incoming administration have told staffers that they will not be able to use instant messenger in the White House. They will forgo the use of an official Facebook account as a tool to communicate with supporters. They won't be allowed to bring in USB drives to take work home. Access to many websites will be restricted. And in many cases, the computers at their desks will be dated and running old Windows software.

While cybersafety and national security are heavy issues in this debate, isn't a lack of creativity and transparency a threat as well? As we move into the 21st Century in an unenviable position, shouldn't we be doing everything we can to do things the best that we can? I don't think "the best" involves blocking websites and limiting the White House's access to outside sources and opinions. Certainly, we can't have a White House haphazardly wading into cyberspace, but, as Compton notes, the NSA and other agencies worked on his Blackberry to make it secure. We should be doing the same with the online presence in the White House.