Any presidential initiative that excites both Mother Jones Magazine and the Cato Institute must be unique indeed. Although the Cato bloggers griped that similar transparency is often not applied to budget matters, they should remember that as U.S. Senator, Barack Obama was a driving force behind USASpending.gov, whose sole mission is to let Americans “see where their money goes.”

The new initiative raises many questions — who will process the comments? How will they be recorded for history? How is the transition extending the dialogue to Americans who cannot — or prefer not to — engage with their government on a website? Are there any meetings where the briefs cannot, or will not be posted? These questions aside, the experiment fundamentally transforms the usual input process for government policy by allowing some conversation to occur between individuals. Some of the most exciting technology in this area are new social feedback tools like UserVoice or GetSatisfaction that attempt to create a technical framework for a collective discussion, without the prohibitively high technical barriers to entry (and problematic lack of user restrictions) of wikis.

This type of social feedback software is exactly the type of technology the fuels the other new tool, “Open For Questions” the campaign unveiled today, which “lets you ask the Transition team any questions you have about the issues that are important to you” and also “browse through questions other folks have and check off the ones you think are the most interesting.”

Fundamentally, both of these technologies of are applicable to policy-making at the local level, which unlike for the presidency suffers a lack of participants, and a need for better ways than public meetings to bring people together across time and space. If the Obama Administration can demonstrate their practicality at the national level, perhaps it will serve to debunk skepticism and resistance at over levels of government. What will remain is to extract the technical machinery behind Change.gov and make it available to local governments, overcome the political, cultural, and policy barriers to enhanced transparency and dialogue, and develop the expertise to deploy them in constructive ways.

> Change.Gov – Your Seat at the Table and Open for Questions

Obama quickly launched an official transition website, appropriately called Change.gov. Featuring a blog and an invitation for users to submit their vision about what “America can be” and “where President-Elect Obama should lead this country.” The website briefly featured his campaign platform, which has been removed. The platform was captured on WhiteHouse2.org, a private effort to allow thousands of citizens to set the agenda for the new president’s first 100 days. The website links to this transition guide for Obama’s transition team and various nominees and appointees, which features among other useful information a directory of acronyms and this high-level organizational chart of the federal government. (See full size)

The Change.gov transition website is reminding some of his tech policy, released a year ago, which pledged he would let Americans review and comment on non-emergency legislation online for at least five days before signing it. Here’s a piece from Slate on the possibility the Obama administration’s website would function as a social network:

The sort of Web site the Obama team seems to be envisioning—one in which the president and his citizens hold deep discussions about the controversial issues of the day—will surely be much less focused than My.BarackObama.com, which had a singular goal: to get Barack Obama elected. Obama’s campaign Web site connected disparate people who shared a common passion; the White House social network will connect people who disagree with each other and with the president—and whose goals might be in conflict. So far, the Web hasn’t had a great record of bridging social divisions. If Obama can change that, maybe he really is a different kind of politician.

On another topic, Obama adviser and transition co-chair Valerie Jarrett recently reiterated he plans to create a White House Office of Urban Policy. In addition to the new office, his picks for many other posts will have a profound impact on our cities, including three posts Richard Layman is thinking about: Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and Director of the Federal Transit Administration.

> Slate: “You Are Now Friends with Barack Obama”
> CNN: “Obama launches Web site to reach public”
> Change.gov

I found it interesting it took so long to reach the 1 million milestone. After all, it took just 9 days for Stephen Colbert’s group to reach 1 million members in October 2007. Barack Obama’s independent “One Million Strong” group is only up to 566,000 after several months of trying. I don’t think it’s because of political apathy, especially since political groups opposing Bush and Clinton already hit the mark. What I think it suggests is that people take supporting a candidate seriously, even if that action is the single click it requires to join a virtual “group.” With five months remaining until the election, I wonder how high the numbers will go.

There’s no easy way to find a list of the biggest lists on Facebook, although a few lists exist. Here’s a sampling that have tasted the rarefied air of 1+ million supporters:

• Six Degrees Of Separation – The Experiment (4,911,727)
• Let’s set and break a Guiness Record!!!! Approved by guinnessworldrecords.com (2,822,768)
• If you remember this you grew up in the 90′s (1,538,571)
• When I was your age, Pluto was a planet. (1,306,606)
• 1,000,000 Strong For Stephen T Colbert (1,248,629)
• The Largest Facebook Group Ever (1,191,504)
• I bet I can find 1,000,000 people who dislike George Bush! (1,001,973)
• Stop Hillary Clinton: (One Million Strong AGAINST Hillary) (992,294 – was over 1M)

> TIME: How Obama Did It

“Let us unite in common effort to chart a new course for America.”
– Barack Obama, June 3, 2008, St. Paul, Minnesota

“The most important thing we can do right now is to reengage the American people in the process of governance. To get them excited and interested again in what works, and what can work in our government, to make politics cool again, important again, and relevant again.”
– Barack Obama, February 11, 2008, College Park, Maryland

> Obama Mobile

Here’s the three way comparison (larger):

And just Obama and McCain (larger):

Obama’s top three are technology, urban policy, and family, and McCain’s are economy, national security, and veterans, and Hillary Clinton’s are innovation, veterans, and schools.

I noticed both Democrats have long pages on technology and innovation issues, a topic McCain omits entirely.

Barack Obama is also unique in organizing a variety of urban-related policy proposals and positions under the umbrella topic of Urban Policy, something that was added to the website since I scrutinized it last. As the first bullet to his plan he proposes creating a White House Office on Urban Policy to “develop a strategy for metropolitan America” and coordinate federal urban programs, reporting directly to the president.

Update: On the suggestion of Andrew Gelman, here’s a different version ranked by the difference in words between Obama and McCain.

Another just by Obama topics:

Calling it a meaningless “quick-fix” solution, Barack Obama argues the real solution lies in alternative fuels and higher fuel efficiency standards.

To that list I’d add increased investment in transit and a higher gas taxes, although I can understand why those proposals may not make it into a television ad in Indiana and North Carolina.

High gas prices don’t just effect consumers, they have resulted in record profits for oil companies. However, according to economic theory we should be doing the exact opposite of what McCain proposes if we want to cut their profits. Economists have found consumers pay roughly half the federal gas tax — the other half comes from the oil companies themselves. This study concludes:

Using the estimated coefficients, we can determine the incidence of federal and state specific taxes. An increase in the federal tax by 1¢ raises the retail price by 0.47¢ and decreases the wholesale price by 0.56¢. Thus, consumers and wholesalers each pay roughly half of the federal specific tax.

In effect, a higher federal gas tax would shift wealth from the oil companies profits to federal coffers, and help pay for badly needed infrastructure improvements.

> WNYC: “Obama Urges Oversite of Financial Markets, Supports Congestion Pricing“

In the speech, he described the necessity in politics to ask and answer four big questions:

1. What is the status of the modern world?
2. What do I want the world to look like for my children and grandchildren?
3. What are the values that underly that vision?
4. What is the strategy for getting there, and what is the role of government in that strategy?

Clinton outlined in general his answers to these questions. The character of the modern world is one of interdependence, and the three most significant trends are the spread of worldwide democracy, the internet, and the rise of NGOs. His vision for the future is an integrated community, where diverse societies can coexist through shared respect, shared benefits, and shared values. And it is government’s role to create the conditions and tools to encourage these values.

Clinton’s framework reminds us of the intangible character of politics: campaigns are not exclusively exercises in aligning voter’s views with well-crafted talking points, not exercises in media strategy, not even exclusively about fundraising or organizing. Of course, successful candidates must do all of these things to some extent to win, but they are not sufficient for victory.

I thought of this speech while listening to Barack Obama’s speech at the University of Maryland on Monday. The most powerful aspect of Obama’s speeches are not the policy proposals (which do earn dutiful applause), but the parts where he describes what kind of America he wants. An America that plays the role of a respected leader internationally. An America where those who work hard have economic opportunity. An America based in mutual tolerance and respect. An America where citizens are called upon to help government solve difficult problems. In short, his rhetorical approach the follows closely Bill Clinton’s questions, moving beyond a policy discussion and share with voters a philosophical outlook.

I’ll allow my political guru friends speculate about the possible relationship between Clinton’s 2005 speech and Obama’s campaign, only point out the irony it is being used so effectively against Hillary.