Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama’

As a Public Affairs Consultant it has struck me as very odd that the Copenhagen Conference - set to begin in under a month - has no confirmed attendees. The UN announced over the weekend that they had assurances from 40 heads of state, but formally no-one is set to attend, which is merely fuelling speculation that the event will be a flop. When organising events for clients it is essential to get the messaging right before the event: it is key to have a good bill of attendees lined up and to put time into strategic promotion of the event. If an event is organised with assurances rather than confirmed attendance and there is a raft of negative media coverage then, suffice to say, it is bound to bomb.

Why is it then that the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference has fallen down this route? It may be that negotiations over what the conference will actually achieve are still ongoing. But even taking this into account there has been a severe lack of strategic organisation around the attendee list. Surely the UN still desperately wants world leaders to meet at Copenhagen, even if proposals are weaker than hoped for.

Firstly, organisers should have invited delegates months ago, the formal invitations should have gone out in the summer and the haggling over attendance should have taken place several months ago. Having left this element to the 11^th hour, there is a chance that at the last minute all goes to plan; but the conference has been tarnished by two months of speculation about the attendees. Still no formal invitations have been sent and so the press have no stories to run except intrigue about who might not attend and how the conference is breaking down.

Secondly, why is it that there has been such a breakdown between Barack Obama and the organisers? There have been rumours swirling for weeks that he may not attend. He has not come out and dispelled this myth and nor have any officials from the conference. Surely both Obama and the conference organisers realise how damaging this has been for the conference. Since September the image of the conference has changed from a landmark event to solve the biggest problem facing the planet to just another global conference, already destined to fail. Why have Obama’s spokespeople and the conference spokespeople not put up a united front in their messaging? Instead there has been division, which has made Obama, who has put tackling climate change at the centre of his promises, seem hypocritical and has made the conference seem impotent.

It is a tragic failure that a fantastic event such as the Copenhagen conference seems to have fallen because of communications failings. Even though there may still be successful resolutions coming out of Copenhagen, I think the negotiations will be all the harder with such an intense media glare waiting for the conference to fail. In fact this negative pre-conference atmosphere might scupper this magnificent opportunity for global dialogue on climate change and cast Copenhagen into the vast pile of what if? moments in history.

Let me know what you think. Should the UN have tried harder to commit world leaders to attend Copenhagen?

Barack Obama’s health reforms have caused a royal scrap in the US and they are now threatening to cause a diplomatic incident.

Sarah Palin has called the reforms evil and said that they would usher in death panels that could determine whether people live or die.

Chants of ‘Just say no’ have echoed around town hall meetings as Congressmen, in favour of the proposals, have faced angry crowds.

And now Republican senators have come out and said that if Ted Kennedy were in the UK, with a free for all Health system, he would be left to die because he is too old to be saved.

For a UK citizen it is hard to see how an issue like this could have exploded in the manner it has. The biggest public campaign in the UK recently was about allowing Gurkha soldiers to reside in the UK, but even that pales in comparison to the furore engulfing the US.

One of the key questions I think is: who is driving this issue - concerned public or wily politicians?

I would say concerned public driven by wily politicians.

For the overwhelming majority of Americans, who have access to healthcare at the moment, the health reforms seem like they would make no practical difference. There would be a shift towards the system that we have in the UK and there would be more health coverage to those who cannot afford health insurance. But it does not seem like quality of service would be affected or tax rises would be very great.

Yet, the public are being fed half-truths and catch phrases that have understandably got them scared. Death panels - obviously would not be introduced; leaving old people to die - obviously would not happen and an EVIL system, WHAT DOES SARAH PALIN EVEN MEAN BY THIS STATEMENT?

Well, like the other Republicans whipping up this saga, she is thinking that finally the messianic image of Barack Obama can be tarnished. The Republicans are blatantly getting their own back for Obama’s success over the last year, which has seen him become the first Black President and enthuse the US with optimism. This is an issue of politics. The Republicans, supported and encouraged by lobbyists from the health industry, are desperately hanging on to the system they know and benefit from and tearing down Obama’s polls in the process. A win, win situation.

More importantly for Republicans grandees like Sen. Mitch Mconnell - Obama has been too much to swallow. He has strolled into the White House with little Capitol Hill experience and announced a flurry of reforms, carried by a troupe of supporters shouting “YES WE CAN”. Well now the old guard are showing him he truth about Washington politics - “NO YOU CAN’T”. Or certainly not easily.

Republicans, angered at his free thinking and public mandate, are showing Obama that US politics does not run as smoothly as he thinks. Great Washington negotiators like Lydon B Johnson were respected on Capitol Hll because their years of experience taught them that in order to change things it takes months of negotiation with colleagues, lobbyists and interested parties.

Obama has attempted to bypass this system by using the public mandate to popularise his proposals. But sadly the Republicans are on to him and fuelled by lobbyists and anti-reformers have whipped up the public into a frenzy. He has learnt a valuable lesson, which sadly may have come at the price of his health reforms: if he wants to be successful a public mandate is not enough, he needs Washington insiders to guide him through and turn his rhetoric into action.

Jason Stamper wrote a great piece this morning about what Obama’s presidency means for the science and technology world. For anyone working in these industries, these are exciting times. As Barack Obama himself says:

“America risks being left behind in the global economy: Revolutionary advances in information technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology and other fields are reshaping the global economy. Without renewed efforts, the United States risks losing leadership in science, technology and innovation.”

And what of his plans to hire a CTO of the U.S.A?

That’s quite a job title and one that is going to actually be filled early next year, if Obama’s election pledges are to be believed.

To quote the man of the moment, he plans to appoint America’s first CTO to “ensure that our government and all its agencies have the right infrastructure, policies and services for the 21st century. The CTO will ensure the safety of our networks and will lead an interagency effort, working with chief technology and chief information officers of each of the federal agencies, to ensure that they use best-in-class technologies and share best practices.”

Worthy sentiments I’m sure you’ll agree and probably not that much of a surprise. Of the two main presidential candidates, Obama was far more tech-savvy than McCain, even going so far as to use Twitter, the micro-blogging service to reach out to potential voters, whilst McCain was virtually tech-illiterate, confessing to not even using email and barely being online. I’m certainly not going to claim ‘it was tech wot won it’ but the difference between the two men on that issue was stark and only served to highlight Obama’s youth, freshness and enthusiasm.

Obama has said that ‘the Bush Administration has been one of the most secretive, closed administrations in American history’ and the appointment of a CTO will certainly help to address that. Transparency in government and policy is always welcome and Obama plans to use technology ‘to reform government and improve the exchange of information between the federal government and citizens.’

We’ll have to watch this space to see exactly how the CTO and tech-friendly approach works out but the early signs are encouraging and it can only be a good thing for the whole industry to have a US President as savvy and pro-tech as Barack Obama. If you’re interested in hearing what he is up to why not follow him on Twitter? He can be found here @BarackObama