Measuring Up

How smart is this man?

Donald Trump is front page news. 

This businessman filled with bravado has us all wondering whether he's really going to make a Presidential run. Or, is this simply a giant ruse that he's created to promote his still popular ‘Apprentice’ show on NBC, while also serving to prop up the value of the Trump brand for a host of other business dealings.

My personal opinion is that this began as a very creative publicity stunt to build TV ratings. But, as media began to listen and widely report about him, ‘The Donald’ saw that a bona fide opportunity existed. Amazingly, the political polls have him steadily rising in popularity to the point where he is now a front runner on the Republican ticket. Some (like this blogger) view this as a sign of just how weak the Republican candidate list is. But, Trump could just play this out until he needs to declare his official run for the office (or not) just to see what options he has along the way.

Donald Trump is arrogant, shows a complete lack of humility and certainly rubs many the wrong way with his outspoken and often controversial viewpoints. His personality and character would be more suited to a third world nation dictator, than the president of any democratic nation. But, he is also very smart.

That's because it really doesn't matter what candidate Trump says. The masses are going to listen and there is almost no downside to what he does and says at this point.

Take as an example his laughable rhetoric on the birther issue surrounding Obama. Only the far right chooses to believe that this could be true. But, by peddling this nonsense to anyone who will listen, Trump now has minted a new loyal base of followers.

How about the Libya issue and what to do with Qaddafi? He was asked this question on ‘The Today Show’ last week. His answer was so comical, yet also refreshing because in stating that he only wants "the oil" or “let's stay out of that mess,” he did something that no real politician would ever do. He spoke the truth. At the same time, this comment served to fan the flames of melodrama around him, serving to create even more exposure, while his new loyalists flocked to watch ‘The Apprentice’ because they need to soak up his energy whenever possible.

Yes, this is what we often call a win/win scenario for Mr. Trump. And, I have to respect how he's created a reality in which his go or no go presidential decision falls squarely around the last and most important season finale of his hit show.

Most blogs and stories on this topic focus around whether this is a big hoax, or if Mr. Trump's views/comments give him a legitimate chance for the nomination. To me, that's all background noise.

Personally, I can't ever see him choosing to run because that means opening up his finances to the world. I could be wrong, but just believe that there are far too many skeletons in his business closet to open up to the world. The negatives far outweigh the positives on this one.

Instead, what I find really interesting is just how long he'll milk this enormous opportunity along the way and the entertainment value that I can take in every time he speaks.

Am I fat or is my belt tight?

Today's guest post is by Peppercommer Milos Sugovic.

It all comes down to framing. No matter what policy or program is being put into place, how you frame it limits or defines the inferences that individuals make about the message. The audience likes to pick a side, even though two seemingly conflicting alternatives are at the core no different. Take for example the Fed’s latest attempt to jump-start the economy – which the media calls QE2 or Quantitative Easing 2 - in which it recently decided to buy $600 billion in long-term Treasuries over the next eight months and reinvest an additional $250 billion to $300 billion in Treasuries with the proceeds of its earlier investments. These bond purchases will culminate in Q3 of 2011 and will inject about $900 billion into the U.S. economy.
 
Such a move by the central bank invariably creates downward pressure on interest rates, making borrowing cheaper. In a healthy economy that’s like taking a fat kid to a candy store. It stimulates short-term growth by encouraging businesses to borrow for the purpose of investing in capital and machinery, while it gets consumers to spend…and then spend some more. However, in an ailing economy, such outcomes - even though highly desired - are just wishful thinking.
 
The U.S. economy is a fat diabetic that has become irresponsive to insulin. A body suffering from type 2 diabetes needs insulin, but like all medication, its effectiveness diminishes beyond a certain level and can become fatal. The U.S. economy is no different: it has become desensitized to the central bank’s flood of liquidity and cheap credit. No surprise, quantitative easing isn’t working. And that’s because the problem isn’t a lack of credit, or that it’s too expensive. The problem is that our accumulated and excess dead weight- also known as debt- has been transferred from bubble to bubble. Replacing that “old” 40” LCD TV, which you borrowed money for in the first place with the new and improved 42” LED model that comes with those scarce necessities like Google, Facebook and Twitter, will do only one thing: increase your debt. 
 
Unfortunately, the American Dream allows for no nightmares. So, the Fed is responding to consumer desires and is delivering cash in the form of "easy money" to an economy which has no need for it, except to gamble with in the financial markets. But blowing bubbles now and worrying about the consequences later is bound to backfire, as we have witnessed time and time again. Driving borrowing rates down to zero will obliterate the interest income for consumers with savings accounts and low-risk fixed investments. It is also likely to increase inflation, which will further eat away at the value of that shrinking interest income, especially because wages aren’t rising. Together, these forces will create a real interest rate equal to zero and incentives to take on more risk to earn a greater return – the same urge that got us into this mess in the first place. Is it any wonder that investors poured more than $18 billion into hedge funds in October, the highest level in 11 months?
 
“Lucky” for us the economy, like the body, has a way of correcting for imbalances and restoring equilibrium. The high unemployment rate is one way the bubble deflates itself. And no matter how hard the Fed and its troupe of chubby Americans try to swim against the current, they’re bound to fail. What’s needed is instead some tough love: some sweat, tears and then some more sweat.

But how does one sell such a message? No spinster can make lower spending and unemployment sound good, not even Mark Zandi, the chief economist and co-founder of Moody's.  At the end of the day, it all comes down to framing. What got us in this mess is, paradoxically, high spending and excessive risk taking when investing. So, what will get us out of it is lower spending and a higher tax rate on risky investments – but such policies are doomed to face severe criticism. On the other hand, advocating for higher savings and lowering the tax rate on stable, long-term investments will do only one thing – generate applause. The funny thing is, the former is no different from the latter, apart from how it’s framed.  That’s why, for us PR folks, it’s all about the formulation, not the logic, of an argument.

Why PR folks should love the Tea Party

Today's guest post is by Peppercommer Matt Purdue
 
The Tea Party just made our jobs a little easier. But this has nothing to do with their belief that God put coal in the ground for us to burn for fuel, so air pollution and global warming can't really be so bad.

Thanks to the throw-the-bums-out efforts of the Tea Partiers and other Republicans, we now have a divided government. The Dem control the White House and (barely) the Senate, while the GOP runs the House of Representatives.

PR professionals should be dancing in the streets today. Why? Because the stock market loves divided government, especially when the Democrats rule the White House.

According to some sharp analysis published in the Christian Science Monitor, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has historically climbed an astounding 19.5% annually when we have a Democratic president and a Republican majority in at least one house of Congress. Compare that 19.5% to a measly 6.1% annual increase when one party controls the White House and both chambers of Congress.

A soaring Dow usually means a better economy and a stronger PR industry. If companies see their market caps rise, they’re more likely to increase spending on PR and marketing. We could see budgets creep back up to where they were three years ago.

But these aren't usual times. Unemployment and underemployment rates remain very high. The residential real estate market is in a deep trough. And the financial services sector is facing Dodd-Frank, an historic load of new rules and regulations.

All of these factors could continue to drag on the stock market, despite the historical data that points to the contrary. Let's cross our fingers and hope that, at least this time, history repeats itself.

Independent and infuriated

As we approach the coming November 2nd elections, a number of fuzzy political/business issues and nuances are now becoming crystal clear to me.

I realize that nothing good ever comes from pontificating about religion and politics.  So I promise to stay clear of the latter, while I air my grievances solely about the former. Maybe some won't like my views. But, what the hell. I think it could be a little cathartic for me because my general disgust with politics, the economy and those who are supposed to be leading us is boiling over.

First things first. I am an Independent (and an infuriated one at that). My wife likes to say to our friends that I hate all politicians and all politics. I think that's one of the most accurate statements she's every made about me.

Now, in no particular order, here's a litany of bad behavior going on these days. Sorry in advance if my rants aren't pretty or politically correct.

I had great hopes with our current President. I think he is smart, truly cares about people and is a decent man with morals. He was an easy vote for me (the anti-right wing one). But to date, he hasn't done nearly enough to revive our economy. Let me be precise here. I don't blame him for the recession we're in. But, I am beyond frustrated that he is such a lousy politician within his own party. Because Obama can't lead (or persuade) his liberal colleagues, our economy suffers. Most pointedly, he hasn't found a way to pump enough money into the areas that matter in our economy to make any difference. Americans are going to vote many Republicans into office in a few weeks. It's inevitable now. It probably won't get any better, but I tend to think it can't possibly get much worse than the political stalemate we're stuck in today.

My feeling is that neither party is any good, though. The Democrats have little spine to make anything substantial happen (witness a watered down health care plan that provides very few real solutions). And, what used to be a party that leveraged ideals to (sometimes) create a variety of pragmatic solutions, seems to now live in Alice in Wonderland's fairy tale world.

On the flip side, I don't recognize the Republican Party anymore.  The witches, wackos and Washington special interests force feed most every decision they make. Let's just call a spade, a spade.  This political group should be renamed ‘The Radical Party,’ because there isn't much left that looks like the Reagan or even George Bush (the first one) Republicans anymore. The ‘Radicals’ scream that Obama has created big government and over spending. Well, the fact is that we need to spend more in bad times to stimulate business growth, more jobs and consumer confidence (just like in good times, our government needs to have the discipline to cut back). And, it was their President, Mr. Bush (that would be the second one), who actually started all that spending.

The problem is that while our administration is spending, it has failed to ensure that those essential institutions (i.e. banks) actually use this money to open up their coffers and provide necessary credit and funds to tens of thousands of small businesses and consumers who deservedly should receive it. Thus, businesses aren't hiring and consumers aren't spending. What a travesty that is.

I'm also sick and tired of seeing and hearing from the same old career politicians. Sorry to pick on the Democrats here, but what kind of morons are we to allow career politicos like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank stay in office? It's laughable that they led the bill to create new financial legislation which is supposed to protect us from Wall Street. The oh so bitter irony here is that these bozos created the actual legislation some 25+ years ago which forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to start doling out mortgages to consumers who weren't credit worthy. Yes, that means they helped to create the mess. And now, this dynamic duo are primed to be the heroes who've come to save the day from those evil subprime Wall Street villains? Puhlease...

We also need to be fair on this issue. All sides deserve some blame for this mortgage mess. I think it's a tad pathetic that over the last week, we've seen how the biggest banks were forced to succumb to political pressure (thereby putting a freeze on all foreclosures). Don't get me wrong, consumers should always be protected in cases where banks committed fraud in how they packaged these risky loans. But, seriously... we're all adults. And, adults need to stand up and take some responsibility for lapses in judgment. The fact remains that many people didn't have the income or credit to take on these large mortgages. And, they are just as guilty for sticking their heads in the sand versus trying to understand the risk/reward associated with the loans they were so gleefully receiving.

Of course, nothing has really changed for the banking community. Many took TARP money to survive. Now, so many of them are reaping record profits, just two years after their near distinction. How can that be (you may ask)? Well, they aren't creating anything of real value for society. Nope. As interest rates shifted, they simply made a ton of money trading the spread on the TARP money they were given. Something about that simply doesn't make any sense, even in this chaotic world. One could always look at that as being a half full glass (I guess). Making Wall Street whole again certainly pumps a lot of needed money back into our economy (especially New York City)... which is good.

Still, I believe in equity. I think most Americans would have loved to see the government actually create a system which penalized any company that received government money for at least a few years. Think about it. That penalty could be realized through restraints on just how much compensation the company can shell out to those traders, investment bankers and other employees, partners and senior executives who are back to filthy rich yearly bonuses. I'm sure that Wall Street leaders would tell us that they can't be competitive if that penal system existed. I think that's nonsense. Since they all took TARP money, it wouldn't matter. They'd all be operating and competing under the same restraints. There's nothing more equitable than that.

Now that I've gotten all of that out of my system (and feel so much better), where does it leave me? Well, I can still say with most certainty that as bad as it is, I'd run for the Canadian hills if the American people ever lost their minds completely and voted Sarah Palin into The White House. Absent of that, we still have a democratic, capitalistic system which beats most every other one on this great, big planet. Still, I'm a disillusioned, Independent voter looking for better answers. I want to believe again. I'm just begging someone to show me how...

“I take full responsibility”

When is the last time you heard a U.S. President actually say that in the context of admitting a mistake?

Can’t say that I remember W ever using words like that around Hurricane Katrina. And I certainly could be wrong, but I doubt former Presidents’ Clinton, Bush and Reagan ever did either throughout the handful of major crises they blundered through.

Last night, President Obama held a closely choreographed press conference to discuss the latest with the BP oil catastrophe. Within this speech, he threw out some typical political rhetoric by blaming a variety of parties for not plugging the leak (front and center, of course, was BP). But, he also conceded that real mistakes were made on his watch and he owned up to the fact that “there wasn’t sufficient urgency in terms of the pace of how those changes (to stop the leak) needed to take place.”

I find the President’s remarks refreshing. Sure, any cynic will immediately counter my point by stating that the President’s remarks were purely politically driven. He had to say something because of how poorly his administration has looked over the last few weeks in its inadequate response to BP’s failure. I’m sure, to a certain degree, political posturing could have been one of many reasons why he offered contrition.

But, the cynic’s rebuttal is probably the exact reason why I feel good about his remarks. You see, past Presidents did everything and anything possible to never have to admit any mistakes… even when it was so overwhelmingly obvious that they were wrong. Just look at W (again) around Katrina. During the worst of those times, the American public had their eyes and ears peeled and pressed wide open, just hoping that our President would come forward and explain how and why under his watch things could have possibly become so bad. Yet, we never heard anything. To most Americans (with the exception of those die hard conservatives), we lost just about all respect for this leader because, in the end, he took absolutely no responsibility for the outcomes of this hellish disaster.

Obama’s concession was not only a smart political move, but it also shows that even when he (and his administration) isn’t in tune with the sentiment of the American people, he somehow finds a way to regroup, recover and make the right communications decisions before falling into a political abyss.

By the way, this is ironic because yesterday I was a few seconds away from writing a post about how our President has become tone deaf through this latest gulf shore debacle. And, of course, apologies (in the greater scope of just how much devastation this spill has caused) really mean very little to thousands of fisherman who have lost their livelihoods and all the wildlife life that has been lost. That is what really matters now. Still, I’m glad that I decided to wait a day before writing a post that would have typically taken just another jab at our President.

A good ol’ fashion witch hunt

I really hate politics. Always have.

And, I just shake my head in disgust with this completely politically motivated move to label Goldman Sachs as the evil witch that Congress is now trying to burn at the stake.

In short, there was no valid reason to make the Goldman CEO (and other firm executives) get slapped silly again in front of what felt like a McCarthy-like hearing yesterday. I should offer up that we do represent companies which are financed by Goldman. But, that has no bearing on why I'm writing this post.

Let's review the facts:

* Goldman is just one of many, many players who created and benefited from the subprime market. Yes, Goldman might have profited more than any of the rest, but were those actions illegal? So far, we've seen nothing to demonstrate this.

* Yes, I agree that the industry needs to be reformed because (in this case), excessive greed without any checks and balances almost killed our economy. Those in the industry should feel bad and need to change. The new regulations should help in some way do this (which of course, is always the major challenge). But, all the giant bank CEOs were already admonished in front of Congress over a year ago. They received a real beating. So, why do this again to one firm as a further example? Makes little sense to me except that Congress has to waste our time seeking out another villain for the recession we're living in because that will feed their constituents' need for revenge.

* I can't speak to the merits of this civil suit by the SEC. But, when was the last time business people (or anyone) were forced to appear on a televised hearing in front of a Congressional circus for a civil legal proceeding? Just ridiculous.

* I've heard a public outcry to create regulation that would end derivatives. The public and congressional members who are aggressively calling for this just don't have a clue. And, that's scary. Maybe they should do their homework. Then they'd see that most derivatives certainly aren't bad. In fact, entire industries (outside of Wall Street) would suffer immensely if we curtailed this important finance tool. Do they know that companies like Jet Blue must utilize derivatives (in a very challenging industry) to compete. By betting on the future of oil costs, Jet Blue can obtain it cheaper. This lowers Jet Blue's overhead which indirectly impacts the ticket prices we pay when flying. Likewise, manufacturers like Hershey, Nabisco and others do the same by betting on the future cost of sugar and other commodities. These are examples of derivatives that are staples for many businesses, providing lower costs in a similar way. Ironically, I should also add that higher costs for these companies would mean fewer jobs. An issue that no politician wants to deal with in his/her district.

* Finally, if we're going to make one participant in this economic meltdown sit on the hot seat, why not include everyone else who shares some responsibility? That's only fair.

I laugh at the bitter irony of how politicians like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are attempting to now lead the formation of tighter regulations. Well, that's kind of funny since these two led the charge in the 90s to force through laws that made organizations like Fannie Mae give mortgages to people who neither had the credit or money to ever be capable of owning a house. This lack of common sense created the necessary legal environment for a new market to sprout that eventually blew up. Let's give the Goldman seats next week to Chris and Barney and ask them what on earth they were thinking way back when.

The problem is that the media and politicians (I call them the wolves) always have to find someone to blame. That's the culture we live in. Goldman was certainly a willing participant in this mess. But, yesterday's eight hour hearing was pure theater for the masses. And, that's just sad.

The Foxes who live in this hen house

I really get nauseous every time I see another article and caption describing how Senator Chris Dodd and  Congressman Barney Frank are overhauling our financial system.

Weren't these two jokers part of the gang to blame for getting us into the housing mess in the first place? If memory serves, both men (who sat on banking/finance committees way back in the Clinton Administration days) pushed hard on opening up first home buying opportunities for those who never could afford to own before. They were quite successful because they forced Fannie Mae to significantly lessen its mortgage standards for who would be deemed credit worthy to buy a home. Their laws created opportunities for banks everywhere to drop any and all ethics they had left. The result was something called subprime mortgages. You can read about the rest in any good history book.

What's my point (you might be asking)?

I'll tell you. Our political system stinks. And, one big reason why is because guys like Dodd and Frank have become professional career politicians. Because of this, they can (and have) entrench themselves into committees that have absolute power. Incredibly, this allows them to remain in charge after they facilitated creating the biggest economic disaster in 80 years.

How are these jokers still in leadership roles charged with changing banking regulations now? It's just amazing. They continue to feast on power because our system allows it. And, that's just wrong.

I have a solution. And, I’ve said it (and written it) before. We, the people, should create a new law that prohibits any American from serving more than two terms in office. That would pertain to any public office.

Wasn't this the true concept that our founding fathers had over 200 years ago? Back then, Americans served their fellow man by taking public office for a brief period in their life. This ‘sacrifice’ away from their careers and/or livelihoods was deemed very important because it helped preserve (our ever so delicate) Constitution and these public servants created new laws that were needed to establish rule and order.

I know we live in a different world now. But, think about it. If politicians could only serve two terms, then they probably wouldn't need to spend all their time shoring up power and votes (i.e. always worrying about the next election). And just maybe, our system could simply focus on passing laws that a new breed of politicians actually think will do well for their fellow citizens versus what will keep them in office.

I think this new political system could also bring more ‘fresh blood’ and innovative thinking into our stale, corrupt pockets of government, as well.

Sure, I’ve thought about the negatives with my concept. We'd clearly lose lots of institutional knowledge on important issues within key committees (Military and Armed forces are two highly specialized ones that come to mind). Still, I'd  rather end this current system (and live with that sacrifice) when it allows two hatchet men like Dodd and Frank to remain in complete power, bumbling around the same issues that that they helped screw up more than a decade ago.

The pot calling the kettle black

Ever notice how many famous (or highly regarded) public figures who go through scandals (or are disgraced) rehabilitate their image only to jump right back into the spotlight a few years later? I’ve always been intrigued with the ease that most gain acceptance. And, although their lapses aren’t forgotten… typically they are forgiven.

Don’t get me wrong. In many cases, these former politicians, dignitaries or celebrities come back even stronger and have every right to do so because their new found visibility has little to do with past crimes or indiscretions. One case in point is Martha Stewart. Martha went to jail for insider trading (actually the official crime was lying to the government.) With her jail term served, those who cherished Martha’s wise home living advice and tips before, accepted her quite affectionately again by enthusiastically watching her shows, reading her magazines and books and maintaining their overall fan status.

Take a look at Eliot Spitzer and we see a completely different scenario, albeit an interesting storyline. It wasn’t so long ago that the former Governor of New York went through this state’s largest political scandal in recent history when the news broke that he was caught red handed frolicking with an expensive call girl. The governor quickly resigned from office and then created his own Richard Nixon-like, self exile scenario. We thought that would be the last of Mr. Spitzer, until 18 months later when he appeared on many talk shows to offer his very relevant commentary on the plummeting financial markets and Wall Street’s blame in the economic disaster that had resulted. Yes, people were shocked to see the disgraced governor in the spotlight again. Some were even outraged. Yet, in the end, this was most likely the smartest move Mr. Spitzer could have made to rehabilitate his image because the only positive and credible piece of his reputation that still existed was forged over a 12 year period as having an Elliot Ness approach to fighting Wall Street corruption and greed by standing up for all those ‘little people’ who needed to be protected.    

Then, there exists a few hypocrisies that I simply don’t understand. These include real life examples of larger than life successful people who fell from grace because of some misdeed, or simply because their success was built on a lie. Yet, somehow, they managed to come back in the most credible and public way to provide counsel or advice on the very same issues or manners that caused the controversy in the first place. One such example I’m thinking of is the former dot.com super star analyst Henry Blodget.

Do you remember Henry? I certainly do. Think back to 1998 or 1999. This young buck was seen as a God within the investment/technology community for his outlandish Internet investment picks. At that time he worked at Merrill Lynch and instantly reached star status after predicting that Amazon would rise to become a $400 stock (which it actually did.) Every technology or Internet company wanted to get on the radar screen of young Henry after that. He was paid at the highest Wall Street levels, treated like a rock star in all public circles and seen as a new sage on Wall Street. This all worked beautifully well until the Internet bubble busted and it was later found out that Henry and others from Merrill’s research/analyst department were conducting questionable activities within the firm.  He was sharing information (and more importantly) helping Merrill’s investment banking customers prosper by writing favorable financial reports on questionable business models. The Wall Street Chinese Wall relationship between research and investment banking was torn down because Henry (and others) helped Merrill make lots of money through these investment banking relationships at the expense of individual investors. In return, top analysts like Henry also received special early investment considerations into a number of the firm’s hot IPOs.

In the end, Henry’s picks all went south and his conflicted relationship within Merrill caused then New York State Attorney General to investigate him. Though he wasn’t ever convicted of anything, Henry was later barred from the securities industry and paid a fine of $2 million.

That’s why it makes no sense to me and truly comes across as the ultimate hypocrisy when I see that Henry is a top anchor and host on “Tech Ticker,” a heavily watched Internet news segment which dissects and analyzes the latest developments on Wall Street and within the technology world. I’ve watched these videos for over a year. While they are entertaining, it’s absurd that Henry actually plays the ‘heavy,’ watchdog role at times by beating up Wall Street executives and their companies for having ethical lapses and questionable judgment.

I’m not sure how Henry could be seen as credible by any audience on this topic based on a history laced with suspect decisions himself. Talk about the worst case of the pot calling the kettle black…

A non-story after 100 days in office

The President's 100th day in office was marked by a press conference and lots of news stories rehashing the good and bad (it was mostly reported as good, in case you were tuned out) of his administration. And, once again, many outlets like CNN focused much of their spotlight on how Obama ‘apologized’ around the world for America's poor behavior over the last eight years.

The amusing slant to this story (for me at least) is how we should all be shocked that an American president would do this. The rhetoric surrounding his supposed contrition is equally as entertaining.

Let's see. A liberal, democratic president openly exclaims to the world that the former, right wing, Republican administration did everything wrong. And, these past government leaders should be ashamed of themselves. Hmm... wow, that has to be a first. What a fantastic story!

OK, OK. I know. Obama didn't exactly use those words. And, in fact, he never actually ‘apologized’ (contrary to what CNN reported, which I'll get to soon.) But, hopefully my point is starting to resonate now...

Whether you agree with their military/non-diplomatic policies or not, it's hard to argue against one fact. Eight years of war under George Bush and Dick Cheney has greatly strained US relations across the globe. Of course, any new president from the opposing party (with 180-degree different views) is going to come into office trying to massage those relationships back to health. And, the most obvious way to do this is to blame those from the ‘enemy’ party that held office right before him. As my partner likes to say, Obama's international tour to do just that was a ‘no brainer.’

No surprise, the sensationalistic way our media labeled this trip abroad (‘the Apology Tour’), is typical and represents bad form as well. Even last night when Wolf Blitzer interviewed Defense Secretary Gates, the interview was pre-promoted for an hour as Gates commented on ‘Obama apologizes to the world.’  Yet, the secretary quickly tried to correct these mistruths by saying that the President hasn't been apologizing at all. But, instead he's building relationships by discussing how this administration will work with foreign leaders in a different manner.

Is it news that Obama continues to travel from country to country repairing bonds with their leaders? Sure. The media should cover and report this to us because he is the President and it is a change of strategy. But, is the message coming from him so surprising? Absolutely not. In reviewing history, Jimmy Carter lambasted Nixon/Ford and eight years of Republican rule to the international media when he came into office. And, his predecessor Ronald Reagan, did the same and beat up on Carter's diplomatic weaknesses as well.

Ladies and gentleman of the media, it's time to move on.

“15,000 youths came into the streets!"

That was the quote from a Moldovan blogger who, with a handful of friends, harnessed Twitter, Facebook, blogs and text messaging to create quite a powerful protest in this little known, obscure country yesterday.  

In actuality, 10,000 young protestors showed up at a solidarity rally to voice disapproval with the national elections which voted the Communist party into office again. Their anger arose because a serious question remains as to whether these elections were rigged to eliminate the other party from having any chance of being voted in.

It’s sad to see that this protest turned violent as the youths ransacked government offices and clashed with police. But, that’s not the part of this story I want to focus on. What’s truly amazing (instead) is how (when used correctly)  the latest, greatest social media tools can serve to inform, shape perceptions and act as a rallying cry to whip thousands of human beings into a frenzy in only a few short hours. Think about it. These young Moldovans weren’t just offering their support on the Internet. No, instead they were watching, listening and communicating in mass. Once they had built a large enough community (or mob in this case) through Twitter (and other social media tools), their newly formed organization had direction and a mission to take to the streets. A young civil rights leader in the early 60s once had the same effect. But, he needed to influence and create action through many stump speeches at churches and within communities. And, even with the impact that his publicity afforded him, Dr. King’s marches often took weeks and weeks to organize and prepare for. And, hundreds of organizers were needed to plan, direct and lead each initiative.

In this case, by creating their own searchable tag on twitter, a handful of protesters were also able communicate a host of newly popular topics (such as the questionable election process) through this social media tool to people around the world. This in turn has raised the level of concern and suspicion aimed at the governing Communist Party from the European Union, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and many other powerful international interests across the world. Here we see a great example of how a tool like Twitter truly has no geographic borders or limitations.

Young people have used social media tools to organize politically before. Through cell phones and text messages, they were able to energize protests in both Ukraine (2004) and Belarus (2006). And, of course, the Internet played a key role in helping our current president build support among many different voting groups just last year.

But, this latest movement truly feels like a landmark social media success moment in the grand scheme of the Internet’s relatively short history. It will be interesting to watch and see how other savvy people (probably most of them being from our younger generation) will leverage Twitter and whatever comes next to influence even more significant outcomes than what happened yesterday in the tiny country of Moldova.