Arnold Schwartzenegger, Terry Sanford, John Ensign, what’s with all these guys? Don’t they know that in politics, you can’t get away with anything? But a significant question to ask is, “Does the Public Care?” I think we are going to find out, given the histories of many of the Republican candidates for president. Check out my appearance on CNN’s Piers Morgan discussing the implications of the recent scandals:.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_l0T_XkWV9Q

Those of us still paying attention saw that the court overseeing the long-running legal battle between Google and authors and publishers ruled against the proposed agreement last week (“Judge Rejects Google’s Deal to Digitize Books,” New York Times). Good luck figuring out what it means, and more importantly, why anyone should care. But it is important, if for no other reason than it is the result of a massive collision between an industry– book publishing–and the realities of the Internet and digital access to information. If you think you’ve seen this movie before, it does look like the fights over Napster and Internet file sharing that has decimated the music industry. Only in this case, the major players are attempting to find a legal solution.

I’ve been following this since the American Association of Publishers, together with the Author’s Guild, sued Google in 2005 to stop it from copying every book known to man–allegedly in violation of copyright protections. Google’s ambitious project was greeted enthusiastically by researchers, journalists, historians, people who read– just about everybody except those whose intellectual property might be given away for free over the Internet (remember those old companies in the recording industry, and what happened to them after the Internet got popular?) [Full Disclosure– Both the AAP and Google have been clients of mine over the years.]

But it is interesting, if perhaps not quite so important for most of us, to understand at least a little of what this is all about. For Google, it was co-founder Larry Page’s effort to digitize books and make them widely available, at least to search snippets, for students, researchers, historians, and anyone else wanting to  experience the bulk of human knowledge leveraging the Internet. Sounds good enough, and that’s the easy part.

What gets complicated is sorting out the three broad categories of authors.  Actually, two are easy, and one is difficult. The first is the volume of works through history where their copyright protections no longer apply– think Shakespeare, the Bible, The Iliad and The Odyssey, etc. Google (and anyone else) is entitled to go for those. The second is the volume of works under copyright protection where the author and publisher are known and active. Think of all the popular authors you know and love, Anne Tyler, Bill Bryson, Sarah Palin, fiction, non-fiction, and everything in-between. This is, of course, a little more complicated, but those authors (and their publishers) can actively protect their intellectual property, and do so by cutting their own deals for licensing rights, directly with Google or via organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center [another former client]. Or they can choose not to license their works for internet distribution at all.

That leaves the third category, and that’s what the fight now is really all about. This group includes all of the works where copyright still applies, but where the holder of that copyright– the author or publisher, her relatives, spouse or estate– cannot be found. In this category are (mostly) out-of-print books and other publications, known as “orphan” works, and these are what the judge decided that the settlement was not adequately protecting. The terms of the settlement– worked out between Google, the publishers, and the authors–according to the judge, “would have granted Google a “de facto monopoly” and the right to profit from books without the permission of copyright owners.” He called that “unfair.”

What the settlement would essentially do for orphan works is set up an “opt out” process, where copyright owners could come forward and decide not to participate in the settlement (keeping their works out of Google’s search engines). What he believed is appropriate is an “opt-in” process, where works of copyright owners could be included if the copyright owners come forward and gave permission. The problem with that, of course, is that by definition these people can’t be easily found. That’s the dilemma.

So why do we care? Most of us probably don’t. We are not hot in pursuit of out-of-print obscure books that have been long-forgotten. Unless you are a researcher, historian, journalist, academic, blogger, hobbyist, or anyone who likes to know what there is to know about a subject. Then being able to include these works in your scholarly pursuits can open up long-lost information, and maybe even a gold-mine of data. The courts will ultimately decide what’s fair, but it is a good example of how the Internet is challenging all of our assumptions– for better for for worse.

The U.S. nuclear power industry just can’t catch a break. It’s been nearly a quarter century since construction began on a new plant. But with policy makers looking for cleaner alternatives to coal fired plants, it finally got some powerful friends in its corner. First and foremost, President Obama has given his support to including nuclear in the mix of clean energy options that need to be on the table. And in the House of Representatives, Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich), the new chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is a strong supporter of nuclear energy.

So industry supporters must be burying their heads in their hands with the graphic photographs of two nuclear plants in Japan being threatened with core meltdown. There may indeed be absolutely no connection whatsoever between the Japanese facilities and the plants here in America. But that hardly matters. Perception is reality, and the public’s fear of a Chernobyl-like incident will make new approvals that much more difficult. Regardless of what happens at the plants in Japan, there will continue to be saturation news coverage of the nuclear dangers as part of the ongoing reporting on the tragedy last week.

How the nuclear energy industry handles the aftermath of the Japanese situation will be key. Industry spokesmen cannot afford to appear either arrogant or its extreme opposite– unsure. Instead, they need to be honest and forthcoming about if and how U.S. plants differ from those in Japan– and how the safety measures here are designed to eliminate such threats. Compassion, humility, and the way to go forward– those three pillars of damage control are essential now for the U.S. nuclear energy industry.

The industry could start, once Japan’s reactors are under control, with a public assessment of the plants in the U.S. that sit on or near fault lines, and the protections in place at those facilities. Second, it could undertake a credible review of those plants and make recommendations on improvements for safety there.   These actions alone may not guarantee the funding and investment needed for build new facilities, but they would go a long ways towards assuring the public that nuclear power can be achieved safely.

A new energy policy bill was an early priority of President Obama, but it quickly fell by the wayside after the then-Democratic controlled House of Representatives passed a bill with cap-and-trade provisions that coal industry states despise. With free-market Republicans now in control of the House and the White House having put energy on the back burner, political pundits give the odds of passing energy legislation a very low probability. As a result, companies with alternative energy as their focus are sitting on the sidelines in Washington. An energy lobbyist friend this week lamented that he was struggling to convince his clients that this is actually a time of great opportunity here in D.C.

That’s a big mistake, in my opinion, for several reasons. First and foremost, Washington is driven by events more than political agendas. When lawmakers return to their districts during the Congressional recesses, they are going to hear loud and clear about the high prices at the pump that are inching towards $5 dollar-a-gallon gas, and the impact that is having on middle-class Americans, especially in the mid-west and other regions where distances are large and public transportation non-existent. Forget that the U.S. government and policy makers have little to do with oil supplies and gas prices in the short term. Taxpayers and voters are going to want action, and members of Congress may easily decide that an energy bill might be a good thing for their reelection prospects going into 2012. In that sense, it may be the high price of gas that actually forces Congress and the Administration to take a new look at a comprehensive energy bill.

Second, a time of no-action in Washington is exactly the right time to begin laying the groundwork for when legislation is back on track. This is the best time to lay the foundation for a communications campaign to supplement retail lobbying by companies and trade associations with a good story to tell on energy alternatives. Once the panic sets in and legislation starts moving quickly, it is often too late to get a seat at the table. Building the key relationships beforehand is much easier and more effective than hoping to cut through the clutter in the midst of the political battles.

There are a number of strategies that can be easily implemented without a large commitment of resources that can begin to position an organization as one worthy of government-backed incentives, so that when the issue does heat up again, they won’t be starting from scratch. These can include:

• A dedicated web portal that serves as a repository of information on the issue and a link to resources that members of Congress, their staff, and other policy makers can readily find and use;
• Video content of executives and industry experts describing and explaining the challenges and solutions they can offer;
• Traditional media outreach including op-eds discussing energy alternatives;
• Social media to identity and build an audience with policy makers and engage in a conversation about the solutions; and
• Thought leadership events that bring specialists together in front of opinion leaders and policy makers.

The most effective communications campaign is not one that looks like marketing, but rather one that truly does bring thought leadership and new ideas to the debate. This is the best time to take those steps, build those relationships, and engage members of Congress, their staff, and the Washington energy ecosystem before the train leaves the station.

Google announced some significant changes to the way it ranks page results this past weekend to better weed out low quality sites that are used to prop up companies seeking to game the system. This move, chronicled best in The Wall Street Journal, follows the high-profile cases of J.C. Penney and Overstock.com, who both got caught using spam-filled link farms to capture the results of hundreds of searches. The ongoing cat and mouse game will continue as long as there are cats and mice, of course.

But here’s what I found most interesting in The Wall Street Journal’s article Saturday reporting on Google’s changes: widely-followed scholar and academic VivekWadhwa pronouncement that he had written off Google because of its allowing spammers to take control of search. When someone like Wadhwa dismisses the value of a Google search, that’s a problem for Google. Wadhwa does say that Google’s improvements made him “optimistic that they may well get this under control.” But more alarming, he told the Journal that, “It’s not rocket science; they know who the bad guys are, they compensate the companies” by letting them post Google ads and share revenue.

I wanted to know more about what’s behind Wadhwa’s dark view of internet search, so I went to his blog site to find out. Let me quote from a recent posting:

“But what has really changed in search [over the past 15 years]? We still go to the same text boxes, enter expressions that we hope the computer will understand, get back lists of web pages that reference those words, and click on links to find the information we are looking for. The only real difference is that now the top links take you to spam sites—which want you to click on other links that make them money and that make Google money. Creating low-quality, low-cost information pages has become such big business that the leading content farm, Demand Media, just went public and is valued at $1.9 billion. According to Blekko’s spam clock, over 1 million spam pages are created every hour. So the web is becoming one giant heap of trash.”

For organizations truly hoping to provide quality content across the internet in a legitimate desire to attract viewers, this isn’t good news.  First, it makes every result that much more competitive with the spammers.  Second, it undermines confidence from key audiences that search results will provide quality results.  And third (and this isn’t really bad, just another challenge), it means that companies trying to target their audiences will have to broaden their outreach– through social networking sites such as Facebook, Youtube and Twitter, through traditional media and paid advertising, and through new avenues that emerge every day.  Google will remain important, but if it doesn’t get the spam results under control, it may be soon relegated to oblivion.

I’ve been involved in public opinion polling and research for 20 years and am a big believer in understanding where you stand in the public”s mind. When I was in the Clinton White House, we had polls in the field every week.  When I wanted to know what the biggest threat was during the campaign finance investigations following the 1996 elections, I knew within a week from our polling that the only theme that could do real damage to the President was if it were shown that foreign adversaries had funneled money illicitly to the campaign. That allowed me and my colleagues on the damage control team to spend our effort defending a much smaller field of play than if we had treated every allegation equally.

I don”t think I have ever seen a poll that didn”t contain at least one surprise, no matter what the organization, company or industry that has commissioned it.  And I firmly believe that the same is true with the revolution in on-line research and analytics that is now available. Knowing who your key audience is, what they think of you, and which messages compel : justin-bieber-news.info Bieber’s World Other highlights from the story:- The Canadian-born Bieber never plans on becoming an American citizen. them to take action is even more important when there are so many more ways for them to get information than even 15 years ago.

I have spent the last five years on the Advisory Board of the Marketing Research Association, the primary trade association representing the polling firms, focus group facilities, and the range of other industry suppliers. The Advisory Board has been sounding the alarm for some time that the industry is under siege, not because clients don”t believe it is important, but because technology has made it more readily available without the expense of traditional phone banks and focus groups.

The reality is that traditional ways of conducting market research are becoming less effective. Take traditional land lines. The only way that pollsters can reach target audiences when conducting telephone interviews. Changing demographics mean that fewer and fewer people actually own land lines at home, relying instead on their personal cell phones which are off-limits to polling firms. So by definition a traditional phone bank will not be able to reach a significant part of the population. And while the traditional methods still return a more statistically valid result with a smaller margin of error, the price of those results may be higher than their ultimate value to a company or organization.

Indeed, analytical tools as simple of those provided by Google offer a wealth of market intelligence even though the margin of error may not be as small as traditional phone banking. More sophisticated tools, like those provided by Adobe”s Omniture services, can parse through huge volumes of web traffic, for example, to provide valuable insights into who is coming to your web site and what they are doing there. Successful companies will take advantage of these analytical resources to understand their target audiences, leveraging technology for the best value and greatest insight.

“William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.” –FROM THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT APPROVED BY THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
It was around 8 on Thursday night in the White House residence when a small group of advisers quietly started talking about whether it was time for Bill Clinton to grovel again. To their surprise, he was already there: “I”ve been thinking about this for a couple of days,” Clinton said. He had begun scratching out notes about what he would say: not another legal brief–his lawyers had been delivering those all week–but something a little more spiritual, about taking responsibility and accepting punishment and sending the signal that he finally, finally got it.

Some of his aides had something else in mind. They had been listening all week long to the Republican moderates whose votes could save the President from the impeachment that now looks likely to come this week. By Friday, Republican brokers had even fed them some actual lines for him to read, the very script that they thought just might save him–and them–from months of hell. The fence sitters weren”t looking for an apology; they were looking for an admission. Say you lied, and we”ll let you go free.
The words were simple: “I lied to the American people, and I”m sorry.” But Clinton didn”t know what to do with them. Maybe they would be enough to redeem him with those members who were prepared to vote to impeach him mainly because he had never seemed genuinely sorry for anything. But maybe they would kill him too. It”s a trap, his lawyers warned. Admit that you lied, even once, and they will impeach you, then indict you, and then throw you in jail the first chance they get.
This is what happens in Washington now, where everything is personal, no one trusts anybody, the lines are down and the friendships and history have been replaced by bad blood and grudges. And so by the time he had finished his four minutes in the Rose Garden that afternoon, talking about his wrongdoing and his shame and Ben Franklin and the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam and the whole blue book of his family”s pain and his God-given abilities, the power brokers in the Capitol who had been desperate for some help were slamming down their phones. “What was he thinking?” asked one. “He”d have been better off if he”d just got on the plane and left for his Middle East trip.” Some in the White House who had started the day feeling sick noted that the President was now 0 for 3: every time he opened his mouth about this subject, he made things worse. The Republican reaction was deadly. “It”s like a sniper,” said a G.O.P. source. “You only get one shot, and he missed it.”
Less than 10 minutes after he finished, the House Judiciary Committee began to vote on the first of four articles of impeachment, each one ending, “Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”
In a slow-motion year that has seemed to go on forever, it is fair to wonder how we got here so fast. The public has been right about many things much of the year, but was wrong about one thing: going into last week, almost the same vast majority–68%–that opposed impeaching the President did not imagine that it would ever take place. After the November election, when the voters spoke, the G.O.P. crumpled and Newt Gingrich succumbed, many assumed that the impeachment hay wagon had been run off the road, overturned, its wheels spinning in the air.
The public went off contentedly shopping, thinking the matter was all but settled, and with that, the wild rumpus began. The White House decided to go for broke: the President”s allies toasted the death of neo-Puritanism, stopped talking about censure and raised the possibility that there should be no penalty at all. Clinton”s lawyers finally answered those 81 questions that Judiciary chairman Henry Hyde had sent him three weeks before, but the answers were forgetful, slippery and showed no trace of repentance. Impeach me if you dare, Clinton whistled, dancing on their graves.
He was, of course, waltzing into a trap. With Gingrich and Ken Starr gone, the role of tormentor fell to majority whip Tom DeLay, the diminutive former fire-ant exterminator from Texas who knew enough to lie low and deny Clinton a repellent foil. Alone onstage with his weaselly answers, Clinton isn”t all that appealing either. He made things worse by golfing a lot. As Georgia”s Bob Barr, the Judiciary Committee”s hangman, said with precise accuracy this week: “One of the faults of the White House, I think, is that they have a tendency–maybe this President personally, perhaps–to break out the champagne or light up the victory cigar a little bit early sometimes.”
A White House governed by polls has trouble reading politicians who are bent on ignoring them. Clinton had waited all year for the Lewinsky affair to be out of the hands of the courts and dumped in the laps of the lawmakers. The framers, after all, had designed impeachment as a political rather than a legal process, handled not by unelected judges but by the most transparently accountable branch, the legislators who have to face voters every two years. With Clinton”s approval ratings still in orbit and the opposition to impeachment screaming from every last poll, it was easy for the President”s men to imagine that they were over the rainbow.
Except that this House doesn”t work that way. The people that count this time are not the 269 million Americans or even the 435 House members, but only the 30 or so moderate Republicans, all on the political version of the endangered-species list, who come from places where most people cling religiously to the radical middle and fear the intensity of right and left. For those members the question was simple: Party or country?
Many want to see Clinton pay, but not at the price of shredding the presidency. Some were just holding out for something they have never before seen from this President: a flat, clear admission of wrongdoing, stripped of self-pity or sophistry, that would allow them to spank him and move on. And others were weighing how hard it would be to fight off a conservative challenger in their next primary. “You”ve got the facts and law about impeachment,” says Delaware”s Michael Castle, “but the bottom line is that for every member, there is a lot of politics involved in this decision.”
Meanwhile, DeLay was spreading the word: most voters are against impeachment because they think it means removing Clinton from office. When they see that impeachment is really just “supercensure” or the “ultimate censure,” as the Judiciary Committee”s Bill McCollum of Florida has described it, they will not revolt; in two years they will not even remember. Your conservative base will be placated and your moderates won”t care, because Clinton won”t have gone anywhere except down in history. Which is also a happy thing for Republicans, according to DeLay. “The good politics, by the way, is to leave the President in office,” DeLay told TIME. “He”s the best thing that”s happened to this party.”
By early this month, the tide had turned, and Clinton was back in his own personal Hitchcock movie. At meetings on Social Security, where he would normally cartwheel through one proposal after another, he sat fatefully quiet, sullen and completely distracted. “They tell me,” Clinton remarked to a longtime aide on Dec. 4, “the votes are probably there for this thing.” Another adviser told Time later that it was “probably the worst I”d ever seen him. It”s not fuzzy anymore. He really, really, really gets the idea that this is going to be a big, permanent stain on his record.”
And so two weeks ago the White House that for a moment had considered not mounting any defense at all was suddenly demanding four days to make its case last week–a sign that it was worried and playing for time. “Mr. Chairman,” said the President”s lawyer Greg Craig, “I am willing to concede that in the Jones deposition, the President”s testimony was evasive, incomplete, misleading, even maddening–but it was not perjury.” The message to the moderates was direct: This President is a hound dog, but that”s not an impeachable offense.
But for some reason, the White House forgot to tell its panel of legal scholars to stow the Ivy League condescension and assume a humbler pose. If you vote for impeachment, said Princeton”s Sean Wilentz in a high-pitched, insinuating voice, you will be cast forever as “zealots and the fanatics [who] have done far more to subvert respect for the framers, for representative government and for the rule of law than any crime that has been alleged against President Clinton, and your reputations will be darkened for as long as there are Americans who can tell the difference between the rule of law and the rule of politics.”
That afternoon, the mood went from bad to worse. In trying to show that the Lewinsky affair was no Watergate, the White House exhumed some of the most partisan veterans of the 1974 Judiciary Committee. Wayne Owens, a former Democratic member from Utah, said it was the current committee”s fault that “they gave to America, to the seven- and eight-year-olds, the knowledge or raised the question of what oral sex is, what telephone sex is and what you can do with a cigar sexually.” And Father Robert Drinan, the ultraliberal former member from Massachusetts, predicted that the committee would “go down in the history books as one that was dominated by vindictiveness and by vengeance and by partisanship.” Representative Howard Coble of North Carolina, who sometimes sounds like he”s still got a place on Mayberry R.F.D., reacted by challenging Drinan, still in clerical garb, to a rumble. “We”re going about our business,” Coble croaked. “And if anybody thinks that vengeance is involved, I”ll meet them in the parking lot later on tonight.”
On the second day the grownups returned. A team of former criminal justice officials argued that few in their profession would consider taking Clinton to court for lying about sex, and none would win a conviction. By the time the White House aides finally let America meet the President”s counsel, the reclusive Charles Ruff, they were making concessions they had refused to make for months. Ruff walked right up to the line of admitting that Clinton lied, stopping just short of the red zone. Clinton”s testimony in the Jones case, said Ruff, was misleading. “Reasonable people, and you maybe have reached that conclusion, could determine that he crossed over that line and that what for him was truthful but misleading or nonresponsive and misleading or evasive was, in fact, false. But in his mind–and that is the heart and soul of perjury–he thought and he believed that what he was doing was being evasive but truthful.”
Then Ruff made his plea: “Let each member assume that Ms. Lewinsky”s version of the events is correct, and then ask, “Am I prepared to impeach the President because after having admitted having engaged in egregiously wrongful conduct, he falsely described the particulars of that conduct?”” It was a lawyer”s last stand, a final appeal to save a client from the congressional equivalent of indictment. In effect, Ruff was saying, “You know he lied and we know he lied. The only disagreement is what we ought to do about it.”
If the defense was arguing that Bill Clinton should not be held to a higher standard than any other criminal defendant, the Republicans were arguing that a President must be. If the nation”s chief law-enforcement officer can get away with lying under oath, whatever the subject, then the rule of law collapses, and everyone else walks. “We”ve got to do it for the children,” Representative Steve Chabot of Ohio said later.
But no Republican, not even Ken Starr, cut through the President”s mortar as efficiently as David Schippers, a Democrat hired by Hyde as majority counsel. In an angry, sarcastic and merciless presentation delivered in a penetrating Chicago twang, Schippers drilled holes in Clinton”s words, deeds and character, arguing that the President had lied repeatedly under oath, obstructed justice by helping Lewinsky get a job and encouraged everyone around him to do the same. “He lied to the people, he lied to his Cabinet, he lied to his top aides, and now he”s lied under oath to the Congress of the U.S. There”s no one left to lie to.”
Schippers played a tape recording of Clinton”s testimony in the Jones case, and the committee room went silent as Clinton hemmed and hawed over whether he was ever alone with Lewinsky. Clinton sat stony-faced through another piece of tape when his lawyer, Bob Bennett, insisted to the judge that Lewinsky had signed an affidavit stating that she and the President had never had sex. And Schippers referred to the famous Clintonian phrase “it depends on what the meaning of is is” from the August session with the grand jury. “That single declaration,” Schippers said, “reveals more about the character of the President than perhaps anything else in the record… Can you imagine dealing with such a person on any important matter?”
The Republican express slowed only briefly when, on Friday, Democrats complained that Hyde and his allies were dodging their request to specify exactly which of the President”s many sworn statements about Lewinsky were perjurious. The reason, argued Barney Frank of Massachusetts, was that the offending statements were all about sex, and there was no way for the Republicans to dress up something so salacious except by hiding it. “Did the President touch her here or did he not touch her here?” said Frank. “They do not want to take that to the [House] floor and to the Senate. That”s their dilemma. Because if they are specific, they are trivial.”
Hyde dismissed the complaint, and the committee proceeded with voting on the articles, along party lines. “This vote says something about us,” said Hyde on Friday night. “It answers the question, Just who are we, and what do we stand for? Is the President one of us, or is he a sovereign? We vote for our honor, which is the only thing we get to take with us to the grave.”
All the while, as the public morality play went on in the Judiciary Committee, the private drama unfolded in hundreds of conversations among moderate Republicans, their party leaders and staff members stranded in the empty halls of the Capitol. Both sides insisted they weren”t whipping the vote, but behind the scenes, every manner of pressure was applied: DeLay and his lieutenants worked from Texas and Washington, tracking down members who during the recess were overseas or unreachable. Committee chairmen gently reminded members of old favors. In a clever bit of jujitsu, Republicans claimed the White House was trying to buy support with oblique suggestions that a vote for Clinton might free up funds for disaster relief. In fact, the Republicans had more to trade, but the Democrats had lots more to lose, which probably made it a fair fight.
Hiding somewhere behind the scenes was the next House Speaker, Bob Livingston, who is so concerned about striking the right note with the American people when he finally takes over that he is missing the most important moment of his tenure. He cut a deal with outgoing Speaker Gingrich to put a moderate colleague from Illinois, Ray LaHood, in the Speaker”s chair during the sure-to-be-televised-everywhere floor debate Thursday. Even in private, Livingston is hard to pin down: he refused in a telephone conversation with House minority leader Dick Gephardt on Wednesday even to discuss censure. “No comment,” he told Gephardt. Conservatives, who forced Gingrich out, worried all week that Livingston would not fight for impeachment. It was not until Saturday that Livingston indicated that he opposed consideration of censure by the full House.
White House aides worked overtime in a hastily assembled war room on the first floor of the West Wing, where business lobbyists were asked to call lawmakers and donors were urged to phone wavering Republicans. Intermediaries issued invitations to come over and meet the President when he returns from the Middle East on Tuesday. Around the nation, state Democratic parties organized phone-a-thons on behalf of the President in districts held by moderate Republicans. Appeals went out over the Internet, and Working Assets, the long-distance company that uses a portion of its proceeds to fund liberal causes, set up a ”            1-877-TO-MOVE-ON      ” phone line to connect voters with their representatives. Geraldine Ferraro pitched in too: she worked the phones, calling Representatives Connie Morella of Maryland and Tillie Fowler of Florida for some girl talk. To the buttoned-up-right-to-her-brow Fowler, Ferraro made a down-and-dirty pitch: “Tillie, a man is a man is a man.”
There were a few wins for the President”s team, but they didn”t promise much. New York Governor George Pataki endorsed censure over impeachment, and outgoing New York Senator Alfonse D”Amato said impeachment would be a “grave mistake.” Democrats cheered when Representative Amo Houghton, also of New York, came aboard. But Houghton, a multimillionaire former chief of Corning Glass Works, is the very embodiment of a Rockefeller Republican. “It”s all fine and good,” said a depressed Democratic vote counter in the House. “But it”s not exactly a score. I mean, if we don”t get Amo Houghton, Clinton”s going to the big house.”
It fell to New York”s Peter King, the leader of the rump Republicans, to explain why he couldn”t bring more along. “They feel it is a moral test,” says King, who has been lobbying hard for censure. “By voting against impeachment, are they supporting this immoral behavior, saying it”s O.K. for the President to lie and have sex with an intern in the White House?”
Moderate Republican Bob Franks was waiting last Friday with a blue pen, a white pad and a can of Dr Pepper in front of the TV in the study of his Berkeley Heights, N.J., home when the President began to speak. For days Franks had been signaling the White House that he would vote against impeachment if Clinton would just come clean. “As the President started speaking, I started jotting down a couple of phrases,” remembers Franks. “Then I just stopped when it was clear that he wasn”t going to make an admission. I just looked at the screen and shook my head. If he had told the truth, that he had broken the law, he would have saved the nation from the ordeal of an impeachment and saved his presidency.” Within an hour, Franks announced that he will vote to impeach this week.
Rather than providing a way out, Clinton”s speech opened another one of those miniature windows into his soul. He talked about how hard it was to “hear yourself called deceitful and manipulative” but never admitted that he was those things. He attributed his 11 months of stonewalling and deception to his “shame” over what he had done, the one quality he has never shown. He continued to thread his presidency between the words misled and lied.
After the speech, his aides explained that Clinton had several reasons for leaving some things unsaid. He feels he has already done more penance than any other public official, and justifiably wonders where it will end. “It”s a bit of Lucy with the football,” said an official. “The bar does keep getting raised.” But the main reason Clinton rejected the L word on Friday is that he continues to insist that he didn”t lie under oath. “It”s very simple,” an aide explained. “He doesn”t believe it.”
It was a fitting irony–the one time it would have helped him to shave the truth, to just pretend for a minute that he agreed that he was a perjurer–he couldn”t bring himself to do it. By Saturday there was still no stampede to save Clinton, and both Democratic and Republican head counters said the momentum seemed to remain against the President. When it became clear that the speech had fallen short, some White House officials hinted that he might have to try one more time before the House vote. Others argued that the apology was actually embedded in the text, that he might explicitly apologize for lying someday, once censure was safely in hand. (The speech, and its reference to “rebuke and censure,” had no effect on the committee: on Saturday it rejected a Democratic censure resolution, 22-14.)
The only person more allergic to impeachment than Clinton was Senate majority leader Trent Lott, who made little secret of his desire that the whole thing just go away. He knows that a trial, which could take weeks if not months (and require members to listen patiently from their uncomfortable seats), would anger his caucus, bog down his party and make bipartisan progress on other issues virtually impossible for months. “He don”t want no trial,” said a Lott confidant this week.
But Lott too was dusting off procedures not used on a President since Andrew Johnson in 1868. Lott met quietly with Tom Daschle, his Democratic counterpart, to discuss how to keep things civil should a trial get under way next year. Last week some Senators began to discuss the possibility that a censure deal could be cut after the House votes. Under this scenario, Clinton might be impeached by the House but then offer to accept censure, a fine and some written statement rather than face trial in the Senate. That way the Republicans could ink their black mark in the history books and still avoid the trial.
But it is not clear that G.O.P. conservatives in the Senate, who already fear that Lott is too eager to make deals with the White House, will allow him to avoid the unpleasant proceeding. And Clinton, more Andrew Johnson than Richard Nixon, may decide that he might as well take his chances on the Senate floor, where the numbers are in his favor. The Constitution requires a two-thirds majority, or 67 votes, for removal from office, something Lott will be hard pressed to muster in a chamber with only 55 Republicans, several of them proudly moderate. With rules like that–and in the stately confines of the Senate–the odds may finally be in Clinton”s favor.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,140771,00.html#ixzz1ES7vD6Sp

The unseen and often unseemly world of search engine manipulation came into full public view recently when the New York Times ran a brilliant piece of enterprise reporting after noticing that J.C. Penney’s kept coming up at the number one result in dozens of Google searches for common household, clothing, and consumer items– even if Penney’s would not be the first store you would think of for those items. Enter “bedding,” and Penney’s, not Bed Bath & Beyond, for example, would come up first. Try “area rugs,” and again it would be Penney’s, not, say, Crate & Barrel. Put in “Samsonite Luggage,” and yes, Penney’s would be number one– above the more obvious Samsonite.com.

After enlisting computer scientists who specialize in search engine techniques, the Times discovered that Penney’s had achieved these page rankings through a massive placement of links on hundreds if not thousands of web sites often created for exactly that purpose– to fool the search engines (read the Times article if you really want to know how they did it). Penney’s, of course, has denied any knowledge of this trickery and has fired its social media firm.

Those of us in the online reputation management (ORM) business have been well-aware of how to game the search engines, and are only amused when these things backfire by becoming public. Google and other search engines pride themselves on using sophisticated algorithms that return search results based on the number and importance of the links back to that page, and a couple dozen other factors that they won’t divulge. But there’s always a way to game the system, and as the Penney’s case demonstrates, if you get away with it, it can pay off.

“Link farms,” as we in the trade call them, actually aren’t very sophisticated– they just take a lot of manpower. Political campaigns often employ computer scientists who can write sophisticated algorithms placed in the meta-data of positive content to drive it up towards the top– and driving the negative stories down far enough that no one will see them. When dealing with ORM, the goal is often to push down negative content any way you can. But there’s a significant risk if you get caught.

Google will blacklist you for a long time. Once Google was alerted to the issue and it corrected for it, Penney’s page rankings dropped down so far that no one wold ever really come across them during a search.

The challenge, of course, is using techniques that fall within the bounds of sound ethics and good business practices rather than succumbing to the dark side. From a practical standpoint, getting caught and outed is too high a price to pay. Public embarrassment of the kind that Penney’s faced following the Times expose simply isn’t worth it. In addition, Google’s punishment is severe and long-lived. Getting good search engines results the old-fashioned way– by earning it– is still worth the time and effort.