This past weekend, the Associated Press reported that the White House was moving to an open source content management system (CMS) known as Drupal. Many among the tech set have praised the move including Nancy Scola from techPresident who was among the first to write about the change in her post, WhiteHouse.gov goes Drupal. A good read.

For those not familiar with what this actually means, a CMS is basically the back-end (not visible to visitors) of a website that allows the administrators (owners) of the site — often non-programmers — to easily organize site navigation and add content designed to appear on the front-end.

For most CMS solutions, the user experience is pretty simple, usually consisting of a password protected login, options for varied user permissions for approval and forms with specific fields based on type of content such as text, photos, audio and video. Once entered and saved, the CMS stores the information in the back-end database and displays the content on the front-end when called up by a site visitor.

In the early days of the Internet, many developers created unique proprietary CMS solutions for their staff and clients to save time and streamline the process of maintaining a timely and relevant site. Today, there are hundreds of options out there to choose from. Check out this list from CMS Matrix.

Open source is basically the idea that code doesn’t have to be authored or owned by one person, group or company but rather by a public community of developers free to collaborate, write code, make updates and help advance newer software versions for all to share and benefit. For a more specific description of open source, let’s go to Wikipedia which is, ironically, a type of open source resource for defintions:

Open source is an approach to the design, development, and distribution of software, offering practical accessibility to a software’s source code. Some consider open source as one of various possible design approaches, while others consider it a critical strategic element of their operations. Before open source became widely adopted, developers and producers used a variety of phrases to describe the concept; the term open source gained popularity with the rise of the Internet, which provided access to diverse production models, communication paths, and interactive communities.

Before commenting on the recent upgrade, I did want to set the record straight on a couple things regarding the history of WhiteHouse.gov and the previous CMS.

To get a better understanding of the complete background, I spoke with a couple of my former White House colleagues who were federal government employees in the Office of Administration (OA) of the Executive Office of the President (EOP) back during the transition from President Clinton (42) to President Bush (43).

As I have mentioned before, in my opinion, President Clinton is truly the first Internet president, meaning he was the first to launch a White House website. Here’s what WhiteHouse.gov looked like circa November 1995. Not too shabby at the time. Evidently, in the late 90’s, updates to the site were a bit of a chore. They had to be made manually via files copied to tapes, then physically carried between floors to upload them onto the server a few times a day. Typos could mean a little more exercise that day. Toward the very end of President Clinton’s second term, an automated system was put in place but it wasn’t capable of managing an entire new site for the next four to eight years.

In 2000, with the transition to President George W. Bush’s Administration approaching, a few EOP programmers got together to create an internal homegrown Perl based solution designed to manage basic content needs for the new president’s site. Why Perl? Two reasons. First, Perl was a common programming language at the time, generally used for similar projects. Second, out of the other programming options available, those who were actually developing it knew Perl the best!

(Update from a former EOP insider: “It should also be noted that Perl was picked because the Tool started out as an e-mail to web page processing script. The original tool was developed to solve the problem of posting press releases to the web site automatically. On weekends and after hours, there was no IT staff to do it … so the tool was born of that. Perl as handler script to parse e-mail text into an HTML form and post to the web site. Then it just grew and grew… initially it was all about automation. Only during the later years [sic] did it start into more of your standard (term used loosely) CMS.”)

Out of this collaboration, a completely new and unique solution was born which we affectionately (most of the time) called, “The Tool.”

Over time, as newer site versions and features were rolled out on the front-end, the Tool scaled with it and was updated accordingly to support them including many things it wasn’t originally designed to do such as creating on-the-fly printer friendly alternative text pages (508 compliance) and digital image processing.

In March of 2007, we launched a new (and final) version of WhiteHouse.gov under President Bush. However, even with the new design and improved functionality for users, the Tool remained in place on the back-end. It was tweaked and updated, but the foundation was the same. We considered options to deploy a new CMS, but personally I wanted to be a good steward of taxpayer money and didn’t think it was prudent to spend a couple million dollars on something that was only going to be used for a year and a half or so before being shipped off to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in January 2009. As a result, the site continued using the Tool all the way up until Inauguration Day.

Several months prior to Election Day, and in a very similar scenario to the Clinton-Bush transition preparation in 2000, career federal employess in EOP’s OA division gathered to begin planning for the next president’s website — whether for Sen. McCain or Sen. Obama, nobody knew. They initiated a review of the most effificient, secure CMS solutions. After the completion of the thoughtful, competitive procurement process, General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT) was awarded the contract and immediately began work on a new CMS for the 44th President of the United States.

Many stories have reported that President Obama’s team inherited an “old proprietary CMS which has been used by WhiteHouse.gov since the Bush Administration” built and executed by GDIT. However, that isn’t true. As I mentioned earlier, President Bush’s website, CMS Tool and all, was taken offline at 12:00 PM ET on January 20, 2009, President Obama’s Inauguration Day, and ultimately sent to NARA.

President George W. Bush is the first digital president, meaning that he is the first to have his entire presidency captured online via WhiteHouse.gov in the form of transcripts, photos, video and audio. However, Web 2.0 and social media was just gearing up around the time I left the White House in May 2007.

Clearly, the campaign had a huge impact on the growth of the Internet through social media and rapid programming advancements (WordPress 2.8.5 is now available already? I just upgraded to 2.8.4 two weeks ago!) but many of the tools that are being used today either weren’t available to us or hadn’t been tested or matured to the point that we could utilize them effectively within the E-Gov guidelines, privacy policies, security procedures and budgetary limitations that often presented challenges.

To put it in perspective, from 2005-2007, MySpace was the most popular social network, Facebook was locked down to only college students with .edu email addresses, YouTube had recently been purchased by Google but was still growing and Twitter had just launched in March 2007 at SXSW in Austin.

There’s no question that the increased adoption of open source backend solutions in the private sector, and now in government, represents yet another evolutionary step in the rapid growth of the Internet. As these tools become more prevalent, users will be able to better connect and collaborate on shared platforms which only improves the potential for digital public engagement in shaping our democracy.

Congrats to the entire White House new media team!

Want to give it a try? You can actually demo Drupal yourself (and many other open source solutions) courtesy of opensourceCMS.com or you could save yourself some time and just go hire the best in the business!

MEDIA

Podcast: The Right Doctor with David Almacy

(Dr. Melissa Clouthier, The Right Doctor, 11/05/09)

WhiteHouse.gov goes Drupal (techPresident, 10/24/09)

RELATED

White House opens Web site programming to public (Associated Press)

Before Drupal, There Was “The Tool” (techPresident, 10/30/09)

For Drupal Enterprise Software in White House, It’s One Step Forward, One Step Back (IT Business Edge)

Whitehouse.gov could be a springboard for Open Source for America (InfoWorld)

WhiteHouse.gov on Drupal: A skeptic weighs in (OhMyGov)

Whitehouse using Drupal? (Drupal News)

My, what a difference a month makes. That’s right, this past Friday marked exactly one month since Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) yelled those two “spontaneous” words during a Joint Session of Congress in response to President Obama’s claim that his healthcare plan wouldn’t cover illegal immigrants.

President Obama has come a long way from “You Lie!” to being named the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize recipient!

Reaction around the world and in the media was certainly mixed with many feeling that this honor was bestowed way too soon – just eight months into his Presidency. In fact, the nomination application deadline for the prize was February 1, just 11 days after Obama took office. We don’t know who nominated him either and we won’t know a long time. They don’t release that information for 50 years.

The White House was clearly caught off guard. During remarks in the Rose Garden, even President Obama indicated that he felt he wasn’t quite yet deserving of the award:

I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee. Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations. … To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize — men and women who’ve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

The Nobel Committee evidently chose Obama based on what they hoped he might accomplish instead of what he has already achieved – as if the president didn’t already have enough pressure to tackle what’s currently on his plate.

Let’s take a quick look back. No doubt that the president has had a rough few weeks including his failed attempt to bring the 2016 Olympics to his hometown of Chicago after flying to Copenhagen to personally make the case. That prompted the Drudge Report (and others) to run with this headline: “The Ego Has Landed!”

Some have criticized conservatives for “celebrating” the loss, calling them unpatriotic. However, I don’t think their reaction was rooted in anti-Americanism but rather it was political opportunity that had the GOP reveling in his agony of defeat.

According to Gallup, Obama’s approval numbers have fallen to 51% and Republicans are beginning to emerge from their political malaise. For example, there are real opportunities to win two 2009 gubernatorial races traditionally held by Democrats (Virginia and New Jersey) and take back a sizable chunk of House and Senate seats in 2010.

Liberal attempts to characterize the president’s opponents as “crazy, racist, rightwing nut jobs” don’t seem to be sticking leaving those at the White House and the DNC concerned that Obama’s star is starting to fade — and quickly.

After all, the country is facing grave challenges in the midst of an economic crisis, increased unemployment numbers, troubled healthcare reform proposals, growing nuclear threats in Iran, missle testing in North Korea and escalating attacks in Afghanistan which have all left him wide open to criticism.

Even Saturday Night Live’s Fred Armisen parodied the president’s long list of “accomplishments” on last week’s show, including the two most important: “jack and squat.”

Enter the Nobel Committee, stage left, with an announcement that Obama was selected “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

Like most news these days, I first learned of Obama’s selection via Twitter early Friday morning. This sent many into a frenzy, and not just conservatives. Tweets had exploded and in usual fashion, it was an instant battle of wits (see list below). I immediately thought the news was the result of some prank that had somehow made its way into the trending topics.

Alas, it was no joke. I remember thinking, “Really? For what?” So, I did a quick Google news search and stumbled across this piece by Michael Russnow on Huffington Post, “Barack Obama, Nobel Peace Laureate: Whatever Happened to Awarding for Deeds Actually Done?” and found myself in total agreement when he wrote:

Whatever one might feel about Obama, he has not earned this singular award. Few American presidents have received it and of those who have it was bestowed after they’d been engaged in something special. … The time has not yet arrived and circumstances have not yet evolved where Barack Obama is anywhere near the point where he has earned this prize.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki called the decision “hasty” and “premature.” Al-Jazeera’s coverage framed Obama’s Nobel win as seemingly, “too far-fetched to believe.”

An Egyptian colleague summed up the vehement objections voiced by many to the Nobel committee’s choice by pointing out that Obama’s Cairo speech, cited as one the justifications for his selection, has not been followed with substantial change in US policy. … What, she asked, has Obama done to make the world a more peaceful or just place?

So, what now? What should President Obama do? Some have suggested that he set the prize aside and then go back to the Nobel Committee in three years. At that point, he can either accept or reject it based on what role the U.S. has played, under his leadership, in positively bringing peace to all the troubled corners of the world.

There was a healthy debate about achieving peace through strength on FOX News Sunday yesterday (edited video below via TPM). Liz Cheney suggested that since the U.S. military is the largest peacekeeping force in the world, President Obama should forgo the trip to Oslo in December and send the family of a fallen soldier to accept the award instead. Bill Kristol from The Weekly Standard suggested that president should refuse the award outright, but if he does accept it, he should do so on behalf of the U.S. military and deliver a pro-America speech. Juan Williams from National Public Radio offered, “They just honored the United States and our stature as the lone superpower in the world and our ability to bring peace and that acknowledgement is nothing that is intended to insult America or our military.”

Interesting logic. We didn’t become a superpower overnight or by accident. As the saying goes, “Freedom isn’t free.” Many have bravely sacrificed life and limb in the name of liberty to build our great nation.

If indeed the Nobel Committee, through this award, chose to recognize the men and women serving in the U.S. military for taking the fight to the terrorists, murderous thugs and tyrants, then President Obama should accept it in that spirit.

And he should do so on behalf of our country, his predecessors and all those who have ever proudly worn the uniform of the United States of America in the name of peace and freedom.

RELATED

Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize Because His Last Name Isn’t Bush (FamousDC)

Top Twenty Twitter Reactions To Obama’s Nobel Prize (Patrick Gavin)

What Twitterers Thought of Giving Obama the Prize (TIME)

Traditionally, August is supposed to be a little quieter in Washington, DC. Not so this summer with the current debates heating up over the future of the US economy, bailouts, healthcare reform and energy legislation.

The Internet is certainly playing a key role. In fact, YouTube may have officially reached its digital advocacy “tipping point” when a handful of videos were recently uploaded featuring flustered politicians struggling to answer tough healthcare questions during several Congressional town hall meetings.

Many Democrats in support of the bill have moved to characterize opponents as an organized, astroturfing, angry right wing mob. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) even went so far as to call the protests “un-American.” On the contrary, it was the SEIU who was caught on tape beating a black conservative who voiced dissent over the plan.

However, this wasn’t an organized gotcha campaign tactic like the infamous “Macaca” incident that many credit for the derailment of Sen. Allen’s re-election campaign in Virginia. Rather, these videos were shot, edited and posted by average, passionate American citizens who gathered to exercise their First Amendment right and demonstrate their concern over President Obama’s proposed healthcare legislation.

As Congress heads into their summer recess, some Members may wish they were spending more time on the beach instead of answering questions from frustrated constituents about government-run universal healthcare. I say let them vacation. After all, it will give them time to actually read the 1,000 page bill, perfect for a little summer reading.

In the midst of all this debate, the Internet continues to ramp up full throttle on both sides of the issue.

The Obama White House is attempting to utilize the Web, just as they did so masterfully during the campaign, in an effort to push the legislation through. How? Well, for starters, Linda Douglass took on the Drudge Report and asks users to “snitch” on fellow citizens if they see “fishy” information online about the healthcare discussion. They even set up an email address (flag@whitehouse.gov) to ease the reporting process.

The primary issue I have with this approach is that the White House Website is taxpayer funded and shouldn’t be used as a tool to gather information about Americans for pure political gain. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) agrees and promptly sent a letter to the White House asking President Obama to bring the program to an end.

If the DNC or BarackObama.com/Organizing for America wants to do this (i.e. Tweet Your Senator = brilliant way to build buzz and your E-mail lists!), fine by me. However, WhiteHouse.gov should steer clear especially when the data collected is not subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and new questions are arising about federal government privacy policies.

Is there a double standard here? Former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino makes an excellent point in Politico’s Arena:

“What would have happened if President George W. Bush had asked Americans to forward to the White House emails they’d received that spread “disinformation” or seemed “fishy” regarding any topic, such as the war on terror, immigration reform, tax cuts? How soon would the New York Times have splashed it on the front page, that moveon.org would have flipped its lid, and the Congressional Democrats called for new legislation to strip the President of his wildly expanding powers?”

Just today, WhiteHouse.gov launched a new “Health Insurance Reform Reality Check” feature which offers “facts about the stability and security you get from health insurance reform.”

Those at the National ObamaCare Opt Out (NOOO!) Registry disagree and have launched a site designed to motivate opponents of the bill to join the fight against it by registering and tweeting out with the #optout hashtag on Twitter.

I was recently reminded of the Internet’s infancy about a month ago when Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) appeared on FOX News with Megyn Kelly to discuss H.R. 615. The resolution would require Members of Congress who vote for public option healthcare to give up their current federal employee healthcare plan (as currently written, those serving House and Senate are exempt for five years). While on the program, Rep. Fleming encouraged viewers to visit his Website fleming.house.gov to track the bill’s cosponsors – all Republicans at the time. Interest was so great that increased traffic crashed the server for almost 45 minutes resulting in a 403.9 Error: Too Much Democracy All At Once!

Instead of using some of the more traditional methods, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) chose to outline his thoughts regarding healthcare reform via a video he posted on Facebook. Of course, I learned about this during a talk radio interview with the congressman as I drove into work one morning last week. See, MSM isn’t dead!

As the showdown continues to heat up after the break, one thing is for sure: This is fight is real and the implications are huge. Since Inauguration, many have wondered if Obama would be able to leverage his online campaign supporters into governing once he transitioned to the Oval Office. I think we are about to find out.

UPDATE

Megyn Kelly discusses healthcare “flag” email lists and the Presidential Records Act with Deputy White House Press Secretary Bill Burton on FOX News. (Politico.com, 8/12/09)

‘Omnipotent Clarity’
At last Thursday’s (8/13/09) press briefing, Major Garrett of FOX News asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about many who claim to have received unsolicited healthcare related emails from David Axelrod at the White House.

On Sunday, 8/15/09, Nick Shapiro, White House spokesman for New Media released the following statement, with a follow-up posted on the FOX News White House blog, Row 2, Seat 4:

The White House email list is made up of email addresses obtained solely through the White House website. The White House doesn’t purchase, upload or merge from any other list, again, all emails come from the White House website as we have no interest in emailing anyone who does not want to receive an email. If an individual received the email because someone else or a group signed them up or forwarded the email, we hope they were not too inconvenienced. Further, we suggest that they unsubscribe from the list by clicking the link at the bottom of the email or tell whomever forwarded it to them not to forward such information anymore. We are implementing measures to make subscribing to emails clearer, including preventing advocacy organizations from signing people up to our lists without their permission when they deliver petition signatures and other messages on individual’s behalf.”

Related

White House will change e-mail rules (Politico, 8/16/09)

White House Passes Blame on Unsolicited Health Care E-Mails (FOXNews.com, 8/16/09) The White House suggests third-party groups are to blame for unsolicited health care e-mails.

ACLU – Apologists for Obama? (Scott Stanzel)

Remember when protest was patriotic? (Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Washington Examiner)

Obama’s Authoritarian Style (Wall Street Journal)

Cartoon: Get Out of the Way (John Trever, The Albuquerque Journal)

From Moldova to Motrin Moms, Twitter has become the arena of coordinated, widespread revolution several times over the last year. Still, when we look back on how the microblogging platform has evolved into a low-barrier tool for grassroots organizing, these will only be footnotes to the events of the last few days in Tehran. As protestors took to the streets of Iran to voice their discontent with the 2009 presidential election results, people from around the world were attentively watching updates from the ground on Twitter, long before hearing reports from any major news outlets.

The collection of status updates on Twitter provided the world an inside look on the dire situation within Iran from firsthand accounts, each message deeply personal and compelling to a worldwide audience. But when the masses turned to their favorite cable news network for more information, they were met with Mike Huckabee talking about credit cards or other irrelevant programming. With no recognizable coverage in mainstream media as events unfolded, it led users to cry foul on the news networks, demanding more information than 140 characters could deliver.

Among the many Twitter-fueled stories from the event, the one that impacts media coverage the most may be how this backchannel removed the mainstream filter to display an amalgamated concept of the news. It gave the masses – first inside Tehran and then across the world – a crude and easy way to drive the issues that concerned them to the top of the marketplace of ideas.

The crowd felt a sense of entitlement for news they wanted covered, and it left the media world playing defense to users who had turned the trending topics sidebar on Twitter’s home page into their own headlines; a user-generated “above the fold” that reflected the group’s dissatisfaction through leads like #CNNFail. Twitter became the instant ombudsman for the media establishment, holding media accountable for what they were – or were not – broadcasting.

The members of the news desk, as well as PR professionals with a vested interest in its agenda, must face the fact that the pulse is beating within a crowd that has tools at their fingertips to easily express their thirst for a certain story. Whether a global issue like the Iranian elections or a local story, communicators must now adapt to provide insights that will smooth the edges and shine the news called for by the crowd.

David Almacy (@almacy) is an SVP and Dave Levy (@levydr) is an AE, both with the digital public affairs team at Edelman in Washington, DC. This post is also available on Dave Levy’s blog Most Likely to Die Alone. Original Source: PRWeek (subscription required)

As President Bush wraps up his weeklong trip to Africa today, there is some discussion as whether he has been given due credit for his strong commitment to the people of the region during his tenure.  Under President Bush, the United States has developed extensive progams and initiatives for Africa to address the issues of education, poverty, human rights, democracy, economic development, and health concerns such as the fight against HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other treatable diseases.

Jim Long (aka newmediajim), conducted a fascinating impromptu mobile video interview with Irish musician and political activist Sir Bob Geldof, of “We Are the World,” Band Aid, World Aid and The ONE Campaign fame. He has also teamed up with friend and U2 frontman, Bono, in many of these and other global charity endeavors. 

Sir Geldof stated that because of Iraq, the media, as well as many Americans and others in the world, understandably turned their focus away from the U.S. efforts and achievements in Africa.  He praised the President for his leadership and aid to the continent from day one “since he came into the job” stating that “what’s happening in Africa is probably the best that America has done, right up until now.”

At the end of the interview, Sir Geldof was asked about human rights violations in China and how that might affect the upcoming Summer 2008 Olympics slated for August 8th-24th in Beijing.  He called on the Chinese to “act responsibly” and encouraged citizens of the world to “turn off the telly” to get attention of advertisers in an effort to increase the pressure and make a telling impact. 

On Tuesday, Mrs. Laura Bush hosted Ask the White House and answered questions about the trip and U.S. Africa policy.  I also encourage you to read Ambassador Jendayi Frazer’s chat from April 2006 where she discusses the Sudan crisis in Darfur.

Update
After returning from a weeklong visit to Africa, President George W. Bush addressed the Leon H. Sullivan Foundation in Washington, DC on 2/26/2008 and narrated a photo slideshow from the trip.

Al-Qaida is reaching out and soliciting questions online – approximately 900, but no answers as of yet.  According to Lee Keath, Associated Press:

Sympathizers submitted hundreds of questions to al-Qaida deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri’s “on-line interview” before a recent deadline. Among them: Why hasn’t al-Qaida attacked the U.S. again, why isn’t it attacking the Israelis and when will it be more active in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria? So far, there have been no answers.

Al-Qaida’s use of the Internet is nothing new.  In fact, Islamic militant websites have been a primary source of communication due to the aggressive and effective allied efforts to break up terrorist cells and thwart their violent activites. 

From the tone of the questions, it appears as if supporters are confused, disorganized, worried about al-Qaida’s future and sense that the end of the terror network is nearing – thankfully!

One thing is clear from the questions: Self-proclaimed al-Qaida supporters are as much in the dark about the terror network’s operations and intentions as Western analysts and intelligence agencies.

Some of those posting questions sound worried: Does al-Qaida have a long-term strategy?

One, allegedly a former Arab al-Qaida fighter in Iraq, complained about Iraqi fighters discriminating against non-Iraqi mujahedeen.

Others wanted advice: Should followers be focusing their jihad, or holy war, against Arab regimes, or against Americans?

Like many in the West, the questioners appear uncertain whether al-Qaida’s central leadership directly controls the multiple, small militant groups around the Mideast that work in its name, or whether those groups operate on their own.

This online forum technique should be familiar to most Americans since news sites and blogs have offered similar venues for such conversations since the late 1990s. 

The White House has hosted online chats with public officials since April 2003 via “Ask the White House.”  Guests have inlcuded Cabinet members, senior administration officials and White House staff.  President Bush answered questions aboard Air Force One after his January 2008 visit to the Middle East to demonstrate the U.S. committment to helping Israel and the Palestinians achieve peace.

Peace and security for the Middle East?  Sounds like an admirable goal.  

So, I have a question for al-Qaida.  If you don’t want peace or a secure and brighter future for your people, what exactly are you figthing for?

UPDATE
Al-Qaida responds (AP – 1/25/08)