Tom Hayes: What would the Founding Fathers make of politics on Facebook?

It's clear that collectively the political activists supporting Barack Obama's campaign got used to knowing - or thinking they knew - what was going on with the campaign. Reading David Plouffe's book might open a few eyes to the reality, which was anything but glamorous in his account.

Obama laid his cards on the table, as many documented during the campaign, and managed to make the election a referendum on his agenda despite the best efforts of his opponents to make it a vote on his "not like me-ness." Of course, the reasons for voting for him were diverse -- hence it was a coalition that put him into office based on a wide variety of individual beliefs and convictions about what it was possible to improve in D.C.

Some supporters (and many detractors,) for instance, failed to listen closely to his intentions for Afghanistan, choosing to assume his statements about being against "dumb wars" in general and Iraq in particular meant he'd back out of any situation overseas where bullets and bombs are flying.

It's disconcerting to others to realize that increasing the transparency of the government, which Obama also advocated, isn't exactly tantamount to inviting activists and reporters into the negotiating sessions necessitated by the arcane rules and strictures of the Congress. 

Most (not all) political activists on both sides of the major issues know that progress is fundamentally based on compromise(s) to achieve what is possible, no matter if it's making decisions in the local school PTA or the U.S. Senate.  Compromises acceptable to the majority by definition almost always fall short of the ideals of those with the strongest convictions.

Unlike the PTA, which is pretty much open to all comers, the U.S. Congress reaches compromise by a not-terribly-pretty process involving just over 500 powerful, influential, sometimes self-serving people expected to do right by the entire country while being inundated with conflicting suggestions. Expecting to see inside that process is a bit - well - idealistic for those sitting at home or working for the media, even if that is what they thought they had bargained for in electing the new President.

That's not how a Democratic Republic works. We don't hold referendums on every issue; we elect folks who seem to hold similar ideals to us and hope they manage to accomplish exactly what we want them to. That's why it's so easy to predict that polls almost always reflect the popularity of a President as in decline - at any given point in time politicians are working on decisions bound to challenge our "collective" opinion precisely because we charge them with handling the hardest and most important decisions.

Now, to balance out the curiously persistent tea baggers who apparently favor a system based on government as minimal and ineffectual as the one in Somalia, some of the hundreds of millions on Facebook are banding together on a "fan page" supporting President Obama, and not second-guessing him. The Founding Fathers must surely be smiling.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, and political analyst who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Did Obama's West Point speech make the case?

Guessing at the response of the audience on hand -- some of which will likely end up fighting in Afghanistan or Pakistan -- based on a few selected shots of cadets that have been prepping for finals and were there near the end of their day after an evening meal is fairly difficult. I think it’s safe to assume the range of reactions at West Point was broad, but there certainly were many cadets who seemed very eager indeed to shake the President’s hand and have their picture taken with him afterward.

I’d say the President laid out supporting evidence for the decisions he’s made, and articulated the goals and mission scope rather succinctly given it’s a distillation down from months of meetings and briefings with countless military and civilian advisors and other world leaders or their emissaries.

Nonetheless, those with an ax to grind were quick to fill the airwaves and the internet with every negative angle they could remotely connect, from comparisons to Viet Nam (which Obama had already effectively rebutted during the speech) to the dollar cost relative to enacting health care (a valid point, which utterly fails to address the reality that neither NATO nor the U.S. is prepared for the chaos that would ensue if we simply recalled every allied soldier as quickly as is logistically feasible.)

There’s no, “deadline that guarantees the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters will hide their weapons until the coast is clear,” as some have suggested There’s a target for turning over control to a sovereign government that nonetheless includes the potential that they can’t be entirely ready that promptly. A Jihad-oriented, radical branch of Islam calling itself Al Qaeda and/or the Taliban is as bent on controlling the world as Hitler was, and the choices are clear: deal with them there, now, or they will export terror around the world at the time of their choosing.

The bottom line is that after nearly a year of consultation President Obama made a very difficult decision to commit more American lives to help ensure a NATO success, thereby limiting the probability of Al Qaeda mounting an effective strike against countries not enamored of this radicalized, extremist interpretation of Islamic law. Naturally audience reaction is mixed, and the emotionally charged nature of this decision means that even among those who watched him speak many weren't listening to what the speech said, but for what they expected to hear.

That effect will only be magnified as the echoes of supposedly informed opinion rebound on the talk shows and websites which depend on ratings to generate ad revenues. The President was organized and thorough, the rest is up to the listeners. If you didn't get it, "raw and unfiltered," and/or you don't track down transcript you're likely to be hearing what you expect, too.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, and political analyst who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Kabul Kabol Afghanistan Searches YouTube For Obama Videos

You read the title correctly. someone in Kabul, Kabol Afghanistan's looking for YouTube videos on Obama with President Harmid Karzai and my guess is that it may be the President of the country or someone associated with him. Why because that person's looking up the President's name and the search attempt hails from the President's city.

How do I know this? Because I was checking my traffic stats and saw the listing report you see here. Hitslink is a program I use and swear by because of this detailed information. I certainly hope President Harmid Karzai enjoys Zennie's Zeitgeist.

Tom Hayden Questions Obama's Afghanistan Plan As He Sees It

In The Nation, Tom Hayden questions Senator Barack Obama's strategy -- or as he understands it -- to shift troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Hayden's point is that the country is so unstable that we may be going from the frying pay to the fire. I agree.

But I don't think that Obama's plan is to recreate our Bush-style Iraq situation in Afghanistan.

At any rate, it's worth checking out.