#leaping

The first- “Election Day is Our Day” which leverages audio from Obama’s Iowa victory speech to make the case to young voters to vote (again).

The second a parody of a future where ipads and flat screens are a big deal.

More info on the background of this ad on Politico.

Excerpt below:

Over the course of the last two years this administration has distorted the “we” in “Yes We Can”, most blatantly during the health care debate. Whenever President Obama evoked the term “we” more often than not he was referring to himself and Congress. Back room deals and convoluted congressional process took the place of the sort of change that comes from the ground up. This distortion was at its worst at yesterday’s MTV, BET, and CMT town hall (see a full recap of Campus Progress’ live chat here.)

The president spent the bulk of the one hour town hall talking over an audience that asked him pointed and honest questions by stating what we already knew. The Dream Act is important, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell must go, bullying is bad, bipartisanship is good. His responses were either obvious or overly wonky for a crowd that wasn’t asking for clarification on the substance of each policy but the state of it.

Full piece here.

I went undercover at Glenn Beck’s rally- looked for black people, and busted a move in the process. CP overview of all of our videos here.

We created a Bieber video that made people angry (still don’t understand why)- overview of press coverage and our response to the critics here.

I spoke at a One Nation press conference- The Nation has video of the speech and an overview of what the march sought to achieve here.

I went on CNN’s ShowBiz Tonight to talk about Bieber Gate here, and then to talk about Lady Gaga here.

We created a fake naked health care ad which also made a lot of people angry- that video is here.

I went on MSNBC’s The Daily Rundown to talk about the youth vote.

Gave Bob Schieffer a lesson on Bieber and then on Jay Z in two segments focused on the youth vote.

Every video I’ve ever worked on is now chronicled in a youtube channel here.

I’ll wrap up this post with the video below…

I’m clearly terrible at maintaining this blog. Apologies.

Really excited about quite a few projects that are launching in the near future– in the meantime, thought I’d post a little of what I’ve been up to. More to come…

Joined the incredibly inspiring David Cho and Kevin Sanchez on NPR’s Kojo Nnamdi Show.

Fielded questions from quite a few people who don’t exactly agree with me on CSPAN’s Washington Journal.

A week ago today I had a chance to confront a distraction-and in doing so found clarity.

I’m not sure if that’s what brought me back here- writing, perhaps more honestly than I should be, but I’m back here… and it feels good.

I’m currently working on two big projects–I can’t say I’ll be writing here more, but at the very least I’ll be checking in and my silence here will no longer be indicative of my silence at large.

I’m back.

To that end, passing loan reform gives democrats the ammunition they need to re-engage young voters. Let’s be clear; young people did not simply vote for Barack Obama but for the principles that he spoke of and the policies that he promised. Among them, they voted to make college more affordable. A recent study released by Harvard University’s Institute of Politics speaks of their frustration and reveals that 45% of the 18-29 year olds polled “are concerned about their ability to stay in college given the state of the economy.” Passing loan reform indicates that democrats hear them and that they’re doing something about it.

His victory represents the greatest affirmation of my generation’s electoral potential. The young people of Iowa set an example, of what we could achieve, the power to confront and defy the expectations of history.

Why should 2010 be any different? My friend rolled his eyes (as he often does when I say something to this effect) and insisted that this explanation could be used in any argument “If you’re going to go there…” He’s right, but that doesn’t explain why we shouldn’t go there.

I do think that this argument is instinctive and explains why assurances and explanations of why we need to compromise on legislation have backfired with, specifically, elements of the Obama grassroots. Why compromise when the basis of what we once we did was the belief that we didn’t have to. The belief that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” and consequently are more powerful than the expectations of history.

I think that the way to reconcile this tension, is to pivot to 2010 now. The strategy behind the Obama campaign, was to expand the electorate in states that were initially un-winnable. So why wouldn’t Progressives pivot to expanding Congress now? Not to punish those who didn’t vote according to our ideals, but to ensure that there are options, more variations to get to 60. One of the most effective features of the campaign were the constant updates from Plouffe. Videos, emails, all focused on providing the grassroots with insight into the big picture. Right now that’s not being articulated- and it should be. Not just in a legislative sense but in an electoral one too. We’re compromising on health care now, we’re going to expand our ability to get to 60 next fall and try again next year.

Give people something to invest in, a long term strategy. The election is no longer the end goal, and I adamantly disagree with those who suggest that Obama supporters were just in it for his election. He made sure to articulate how that couldn’t be the case ie: “I know you didn’t do this for me.” I don’t think those kind of statements were simply an exercise in humility, but rather the framework from which he could then go back and remind supporters of their obligations post-election. I think it’s time to pull that card now.

Ps. Happy New Years.

My first field report for Campus Progress.

Then a follow up opinion piece on Huffpost.

To Summarize:

“No” is not a sufficient explanation for denying millions of New Yorkers a right that I am free to take for granted. “No” is not how this country intended for us to begin — let alone end — a debate on equality. “No” warrants the question why. When that explanation is based in not fact, but freedom, than we must ask why the same freedom that enables a State Senator to say “no” in Albany prohibits a same-sex couple from saying “I do” in Brooklyn.