So you're a candidate running for office. And you now know that most close campaigns will be won or lost on the web. But effectively using the web is much more than having a website, blog, and a twitter feed. Providing the tools with the knowledge of how to use them effectively is like giving a kid his first rifle and telling him to go out in the woods and get the family dinner. In both those cases the lack of training means the most likely outcome is shooting yourself in the foot.

The fundamental concept you need to understand about the web is that it runs on credibility. And credibility comes from persuasive argument backed up by links to credible sources with supporting documentation. This is the polar opposite of TV where the fundamental message is the sound bite. Long answers are death on TV. Sound bites are death on the web. To succeed, you must tailor your message for the medium.

This is key, to succeed on the web requires detailed credible statements.

So what to do? First, read What Would Google Do. It is fundamentally a discussion about how to market in today's world. And that includes how to market a political candidate. The world has turned upside down and this book details that change.

Second, there is tremendous opportunity here for those that make use of this. Short posts by the candidate on a topic, written in a way that Google will rank it well (SEO) and placed where others will tend to find it and/or link to it, means that when people are looking for information on that topic, they will find that post. If someone cares about water policy in Colorado and is reading several posts about it, and comes across one that they think shows a really good grasp of all the issues and how to address them – and they see it signed by a candidate – they've just won their vote.

Candidates & their campaigns also need to do it appropriately (not too much, not too little). But generally that means don't over-blast on a subject and don't over-blast in a given venue. But spread out over different topics in different blogs/forums/sites, there is pretty much no limit to that.

And it has to be from the candidate. No they don't have to write it themselves and no they don't have to post it themselves. But it has to sound like they wrote and posted it. It has to be in their voice, first person, and without the marketing verbiage that festoons most candidate PR pieces. Because if it's viewed as marketing fluff it is discounted by most readers. (Congressman Jared Polis is superb at this – he writes his own stuff.)

Candidates will be defined in the blogosphere and this definition will be based on a lot of data. This tends to be a definition that is virtually impossible to change because of the strength of that data. Everyone has their own conclusion from all that data, but it's amazing how much agreement there is across the spectrum. (I had conversations with numerous Udall & Schaffer supporters where we basically agreed on what both Udall and Schaffer would do in the Senate – we just disagreed on which of those was better.)

I believe if this is done effectively a candidate may have won over enough people a year from now that they'll start the campaigns with a significant advantage. And as the campaign progresses, they'll own the web for the campaign because of the large amount of your content that is already highly rated – that advantage cannot be countered over a short period.

Associated with the above is the concept of transparency.

Voters want to know what you are thinking and why. To a degree that occurs with the above. But it is important to focus on this because again, if people view you as being fully forthcoming, that buys you both credibility and support. I have seen numerous responses to politicians who lay out why they voted a certain way in the vein of "I disagree with your reasoning on this but I appreciate you explaining it to us and you have my vote." Got that? You can get the votes of people who disagree with your vote if you're up front with them. Not always, but some.

For officeholders, when they decide how they are going to vote on a contentious issue, they should announce it via an email blast followed immediately by posts to the main blogs. And it has to go into detail as to why. However they vote some groups are going to be pissed, but this way you create the initial frame of the discussion. And then being involved in the follow-on discussion brings the arguments of the candidate into the discussion. The alternative is that the discussion occurs, but with the candidate's view being framed by others.

To pick on a Democrat this time, let's use the example of Senator Bennet's vote on the cram-down legislation awhile ago (he voted against it). Every time Senator Bennet comes up for discussion and the discussion touches on the economy, this is brought up. It is there in blog after blog, comment after comment. But what greatly harms him in this is that he never spoke to the specifics of why he voted as he did. So his position is being defined by others. The lack of transparency continues to hurt him on this issue.

Success on the web means transparency. Transparency means tell people why.

Finally, the key issue is not hiring people to do your web response, it's what that response will be. Don't confuse getting an infrastructure in place with determining an effective response. Those are two very different things. Don't overanalyze what you will do, who should do what, etc. Just start writing. There is no "correct" way to get your message out. There are many ways and the trick is to try and see what works best for you.

Next: Damage Control

A giant change that has occurred is that people no longer go to a source and read/view what that source presents to them. I.e., on the web most people do not go to the Denver Post home page to then check all the stories the Post has listed. Instead most people come to individual stories via links from elsewhere and via Google searches. This is a significant difference in that it is no longer the Post pushing the stories but the user pulling what is of interest.

The other giant change is that when people are finding info of interest via links and searches, they tend to not even know who the source is in many cases, and definitely don't put much of a premium on where it came from. So a high listing on Google or links from a page many hit gives an article more credibility and impact than saying it was in the NY Times.

Winston Churchill started his books on WWII  as soon as the war was over – because those who wrote first would define history's view of the war. A candidate needs to get their side out first, in detail, with links to supporting documentation. And post that in the various blogs, not just on their website. Because if they don't post first, others get to define the story.

This bears repeating – you will win or lose on the web based on two things, links and page rank. Links and page rank occur primarily from the quantity of quality posts about a candidate. And quality does not mean positive – it means a post that people view as credible and readable. This means the web is won or lost well before the final run up to the election. A candidate will be defined in the blogosphere and this definition will be based on a lot of data. This tends to be a definition that is virtually impossible to change because of the strength of that data. Everyone has their own conclusion from all that data, but it's amazing how much agreement there is across the spectrum.

For the skeptical, let's look at the coverage of Iran today. The MSM has basically been shut down in Iran. We are getting our news from Twitter, Facebook, & YouTube. It is the aggregated on sites like HuffPo & The Daily Dish. And what has happened to the quality and depth of the news? I think it's better as we are getting the raw feeds from everyone. We are each left to sift through the info, decide what to read/watch, and what level of credibility to give to each. That's a lot more work, but it also forces us to think more about what we are seeing. In the requirement to think, we learn more.

As to the worry that we do not have as good a foundation to weigh what we see – yep. But the professional reporters don't always get it right either. And when we all view and discuss and post and link on the stories, we learn from each other. And in that discussion we will many times, in the group effort, get a more accurate, and more nuanced picture. Watching Iran is the future of news, and I think it looks very promising.

Equally important, you will notice that outside of the MSM itself, there is no concern that not having reporters on the ground is a major problem. People are clearly comfortable with this new approach. This is the final death knell for newspapers – with no strong concern at their passing there is nothing left to counter the economic fact that newspapers cannot make a profit.

(Before you feel too bad for newspapers, keep in mind that they still, even now at death's door, are unwilling to try anything radically different. I proposed to two newspapers here that they run the interviews I do with politicians & candidates on their websites as they no longer do that. I was turned down because doing so "would require fact checking, editing, approval by the paper, etc." Even at death's door, changing the process is not open to consideration.)

The web has additional impact in that, just as newspapers would drive what hard news TV stations would do, the blogosphere now drives what the MSM does. The U.S. Attorney story hit the big time, and stayed there, because of Josh Marshall at TPM. I've seen phrases I first coined in the last election appear in the Denver area MSM 2 – 3 days later. There were times I wrote posts that were purposely aimed at just 4 people – all of them reporters.

I think this change is bringing about a significant beneficial change for our political system. Because credibility on the web comes from information. Yes a lot of it is slanted. Yes some of it is false. And there are a million opinions about what all that information means. And those opinions become part of the information. But think about it, that means we are discussing & evaluating candidates in depth. The day of a candidate who campaigns in trite vacuous sound bites is ending.

Next: What should a candidate do (bad news – it's harder, good news – it's a lot cheaper).

Marketing has radically changed over the last 5 years. And we, like everyone else, are trying to figure out what we should do to market Windward. But this change is equally gigantic for another system – and that's political campaigns. A lot of these changes hold equally well for both. A candidate is a product. And a political campaign is a marketing effort. This is not meant to denigrate candidates (my mom is a representative in the Hawaii state house), it's just pointing out that there are great similarities.

Here's the thing, how a candidate uses the web will make a substantial difference in how they do in the election. It presently has greater impact than anything except paid TV ads. And by 2012 it will probably surpass TV. Candidates in close races will win or lose based on their Internet strategy.

But "use the web" can take many meanings. A candidate needs to have a good website, but that has little impact. A video like the "Macaca" one can kill a candidate, but that is a rare event – and the real lesson from that is you need to respond to what comes out on the web. Posting tweets are a part of this, but again a small part.

Let's start off with an example of the impact of the web in the '08 election. No not Obama, let's look at the Senate race in Colorado which was supposed to be very close - Bob Schaffer [R] vs. Mark Udall [D]. But as we started the election (after Labor Day) an interesting thing occurred – Bob Schaffer was already seriously down in the polls. And he remained down even with millions poured in both from his own campaign and independent expenditures. It was over before it even started.

What happened? Bob Schaffer was taken out in the blogosphere over the summer. And it was done in such a way that by September it was too late to counteract. And the hits kept occurring from then up to election day, with Schaffer's campaign and the 527s backing him not knowing how to respond.

The end result was a blow-out and I think the Colorado GOP still doesn't understand what happened. To be honest, I don't think the Colorado Democratic party really understands it either. The people who understand it are a number of independent individuals who were among those who contributed to the effort.

So what happened?

There are a lot of items that go into that answer, and it will be multiple posts to cover all of it. But let's start with item # 1. Things no longer go away. They may recede into the background but they no longer go away. They are out there on the web forever, never more than a single link in an article or Google search away.

George Allen was not beat because he was recorded calling an Indian-American Macaca (twice). He was beat because unlike the old days when it would have hit the news for a day or two and then gone away, it remained out there every day up to the election. And every time someone opposed to Allen posted anything against him, they would find a way to mention the video and put a link to it. Virtually every voter in Virginia saw that video – multiple times. Every Jim Webb supporter saw it and that encouraged them to work harder. Many Allen supporters were disheartened by it. And virtually all undecided voters took it into account.

Bad press keeps coming round. It used to be a story hit, ran for 1 – 2 days max, then it was over. And it wasn't revisited – because the press was always looking for something new and found "old news" uninteresting. Again, on the web any given story is always just a Google search away. And many posts on new issues will bring up old ones.

I think this is actually a good thing – we now are seeing our elected officials as the sum of their actions and from that get a much more accurate picture. But it means the candidate is judged by items they wish would fade over time. Or to put it another way, a candidate will be judged primarily by who he or she is, not by how the marketing tries to sell her or him.

What destroyed the Bob Schaffer campaign is that the stories that defined Bob Schaffer were those put out by Democratic activists. And the stories that defined his opponent were those put out by, again, Democratic activists. The GOP activists were mostly (not entirely) missing in action on the web. And so both candidates were defined by Democratic activists. And with that, it was a blowout for Mark Udall [D].

Come September '10 if both candidates in a race have been well defined by one side then that side has a tremendous advantage. Depending on how much better one side did, it adds 5 – 10 points to that candidate.

And when does a candidate need to start their effort on the web?

Yesterday.

Next: The new definition of credibility

Trying something new - you can listen to the first 45 minutes of the interview here. (It was a 90 minute tape but apparently that's at the slow speed and I used the high speed so it ended at 45 minutes.) Nothing major in the last 15 minutes, that was just about his trips to Argentina and staying at the Mayflower Hotel in D.C. (For the totally oblivious – just kidding.) The meeting was Governor Ritter, Evan Dryer, & me.

This was a lot different from most of my previous interviews. I figure the first one is to let an individual talk and they drive the conversation. But for the 2^nd one, I came in with a bunch of questions and tried to get full answers to those questions. So here's my first effort at an interview I tried to drive.

Governor Ritter consistently answered my questions. He never avoided them nor did he try to change the subject. And an interview scheduled for ½ hour ran a bit over an hour when he had to call it quits. So being hit with a bunch of questions, he did not use the excuse of times up to cut & run. I think this is one of Ritter's most commendable features, he will talk to the points brought up and discuss them in full.

We started on what he called the "grocery bill" and his naming of it is interesting. Clearly to him unemployment for locked out workers, with this bill, was totally wrapped up in the negotiations between the unions and the grocery chains. He first discussed how Governors historically did not pre-announce if they would veto bills and that he has been more open on his inclinations than Bill Owens was. Then he discussed how the house bill that took effect in 2010 was what he was looking for. He didn't say he would have signed it, but he delivered the impression he would have.

He also pointed out the Republicans in the Senate voted for the bill with a July 2009 effect because "they knew" he would then veto it. This is a very credible argument as the Republicans this session have spent most of it trying to just honk anything & everything up. And they've never been accused of being strong supporters of the unions. So very interesting argument that people knew the 2009 date was a deal killer.

With all that said, I asked if he told the legislators that 2009 was a deal killer and he was very clear that his staff had delivered a strong message that it needed to be later, but also that he did not have a direct conversation on this specific topic. Bottom line I think is that the hints from his office were not communicated well and that problem could be primarily due to either end of that discussion. But he also should have sat down with the leadership and told them point blank make it 2010 or it's dead.

We discussed jobs in different ways many times over the hour. Green energy clearly drives the Governor. He started in about how we have jobs coming here because we are the center for green energy and how from Vestas to NREL to a number of others he listed these are quality jobs that are being created now. He clearly views this as a wonderful two-fer in that we are becoming the center for green energy in the country and those companies are providing jobs. Based on what he said I think making us the center for green energy is Ritter's primary driver and the new jobs is a wonderful additional benefit. And long term that is the right priority.

He also discussed a 5 year FICA credit for companies that create 20 or more jobs where the average wage is greater than the state average. This is a really interesting approach as the credit is substantial, is tied to the employee's pay, and exists only as long as the new jobs do. He claims that several companies have located new operations here specifically because of this new law. And as an executive I can say that this is something that would influence what we do. On the flip side, they might want to get the word out as I had never heard of this before – and I'm one of the targets for this.

I started a discussion of newspapers by saying that the daily paper has been the core of investigative journalism in this country for the last 100 years with the rest taking their lead from the work of the daily papers. I then asked him what does he think will happen when the daily papers are no more in 3 – 5 years. He talked first about how he & his wife read the paper every day – but his kids don't. He sees first hand that the web is the only source for the upcoming generations and sees that this is inevitable. He also said that he thinks the blogs are now driving what the daily papers cover (yo Wall Street Journal – Pulitzer Prize story for you – small software company in Boulder with incredible product – call me).

He then talked at some length of the lack of accountability and civility in the blogosphere. What was interesting is the way he talked about accountability he was talking about people being accountable for what they write, not bloggers holding politicians accountable for what they do. It makes sense from his perspective as he (and every other politician) gets hammered mercilessly, and mostly by anonymous posters. (My feeling is toughen up – this is no different from the broadsheets at the founding of our country.)

He did talk about the worry of who is going to cover school board meetings and the many other items like that. He pointed out that school boards have more impact on our lives than most other parts of the government, yet could fall off the radar with the death of newspapers. He does think that out of the blogging community we will see enough reporting done that we will have some good coverage. He also clearly now views talking to bloggers as a key part of getting his message out to the community so I think it's a safe bet he will be communicating more and more on the web (can Ritter's Twitter be far off?).

We discussed small business. He started off on this saying the biggest need he had heard from small businesses was that without credit they were dead. And credit has disappeared. My company does not need credit, but we run up substantial Visa bills between Google and ordering hardware & software – and with reduced limits we have to pay the cards off every 2 weeks instead of monthly. For a company that needs credit to bring in the materials they use to create what they sell this would kill them. So he has put a major effort into making sure credit is available. Critically important work.

I then got the standard "small business is important to us" spiel. So I asked him why the State is unwilling to consider purchasing from small high-tech companies in the state. Governor Ritter was insistent that the State absolutely was open to buying from local companies. When I brought up several specific situations he continued to insist that while a few departments might not be perfect on this issue, that the state was very open on this.

This is where as a blogger I have an advantage over a reporter. With a reporter they can pass on he said/she said but they don't know what's really going on. But I could (and did) tell the governor that I have found the OIT unwilling to even look at our company. Not that they looked and didn't like it, but totally unwilling to look. (If Xcel operated like OIT they would tell us they had all this lovely infrastructure for coal power plants and so would not even look at wind or solar.) Even with this Ritter insisted that the state is open to local small business. I think he does truly believe this and is simply unaware of how his administration is handling this. He might want to talk to Greg Lopez.

This then took us to the topic of CBMS as there are some local companies that tried to step up and offer solutions to this. And of course were told to go away. Ritter agreed that it was a complete disaster and they had gotten Deloitte to fix it. Ritter's view is that for a system this big with a problem this big, they needed a major player like Deloitte. My opinion is they have a total clusterfuck because they decided to create a gigantic system using a major consulting service. I don't expect a governor to understand who to hire to get quality software delivered on time and under budget, but he should have people working for him that do. My guess is Ritter is going to be surprised when this is still an issue 4 years from now. But he thinks they have it under control.

I then brought up the criticism that he tends to go for the safe plays and never goes for the hail mary pass. But with the economy in the toilet, it pretty much demands that we go for some major changes. Ok, if you want to annoy Bill Ritter, tell him he doesn't go for the impossible goals. This got a passionate response. His main point was that you don't get "Las Vegas lights" from him, you just get results. He brought up FASTER, the doubling of alternative energy requirements (and including the REAs in the requirement), and the new education measurement & 5 years of high school legislation.

And you know something… He has a point. We would always like to see more, but there have been some substantial efforts. And I think the education one is the one that actually was the furthest reach and it will have the most impact. Evan Dryer afterwards also brought up the Oil & Gas rules and A-58 which are two other examples. And the fact that A-58 lost makes it an even better example because it's one where he tried to do something that was very difficult and failed. If he always succeeded then he is being too careful.

So we (because I agreed with this criticism) should maybe change it from Ritter never tries for the big win to we would prefer that he did so on a few other issues. Governor Ritter also made the very legit point that substantial change is a multi-year effort to get passed and then takes many years to effect the system. He definitely takes the long view on applying his efforts. So if all of his work over his two terms works out well and bears fruit, then the next Governor will be able to take credit for all the wonderful improvements then starting to bear fruit.

This discussion led to the work on improving K-12 education. We discussed first how the mother's educational level was the driving force in how a child does not just in school, but health, success, life. He had seen the same thing during his time in Africa. He then launched in to a discussion about the state's efforts to get adults GEDs, etc to improve that educational level.

He then discussed the efforts presently under way which is primarily pre-school for all that need it and full day kindergarten. Both of these efforts should (he said will) improve our graduation rates. He also discussed the new systems coming on to measure improvement by student, school, and teacher. And he then discussed how this will show if a teacher is effective. And if a teacher is not effective, and he stressed that this measurement is one tool but not the total story, but if a teacher is not getting the job done – then they need to be let go. This is major because measurement is a key step but if schools cannot take corrective action, it doesn't do much good.

So there you go. My big take-aways are that to him the blow-up concerning vetoing the union bills is over. That green energy & education are the two issues (we discussed) that have his passion and major efforts. That he is concentrating on doing what the state needs with an emphasis on jobs today and big picture long-term. And finally, that he's not going to show-boat.

And here's the thing, while he's not perfect, this is someone who is concentrating on governing well as opposed to campaigning well. Quiet competence is always under appreciated.

It will take a bit of time to tell but I think the revolution in Iran may have tremendous impact on our world.

First, the entire world is watching and supporting an incredibly brave people face down a corrupt & repressive regime. These people are clearly heroes. And they are Muslim, Middle Eastern, and most people assume Arabic. Just as having an African-American in the White House fundamentally changes people's view of African-Americans, this fundamentally changes people's views of Middle-Eastern Muslims. This puts us on the road to being able to establish a strong relationship of equals.

Second, the protesters are not looking to turn Iran into a secular Jeffersonian democracy. But they are looking to turn it into a liberal Muslim state that follows the rule of law. How and to what degree they choose to seperate church & state will be very different from what we did. But keep in mind what we have today is very different from what we first had in the elightenment. The important thing is they are starting down this road. And they have learned that religious leaders, like every other human being, will misuse absolute power.

Third, we now have a swath of countries - Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, & Palestine that are learning how to be democracies. 20 years ago there was not even a glimmer of democratic movement in the middle east. And Iran, unlike every other example, is doing this on its own with no support or encouragement from the U.S. Every remaining regime in the middle east has to be scared shitless by this because their people could choose to do the same thing - totally on their own.

I was invited down to the capitol for Governor Ritter's end of bill signing time (or some title like that) press conference today. I've never been to one of these before so it was interesting to participate. It seems almost like a set piece of theater where everyone knows in advance what questions will be asked and what the Governor will say in response. We didn't learn anything new.

I can see why there is such an urge on the part of reporters to play gotcha – you get 1 question and the politico is ready to deflect any question they don't like and then move to the next person. And so to get something interesting you almost have to ask a variation of the "do you still beat your wife" type of question. With that said, the questions were all good and Ritter did speak to each rather than dancing around them. So because everyone treated this professionally, it provided about as much information as possible.

With that said, I think it's best to think of these things as being like a wedding, you go because you like the person, or you are returning the favor for the times that they did talk to you one on one. And the office of Governor does deserve the attention of the press. But it's not an event that's going to provide much in the way of anything new. With that said…

1. The TV talent was all dressed in suits while everyone else (camera operators, print reporters) were dressed, shall we say, very comfortably.
2. Lynn Bartels is clearly the top dudette of the political press corp. She got the first question and managed 3 in the event (everyone else got 0 or 1). She did it quite well without being too pushy – an impressive balancing act.
3. We start with Ritter walking in (they don't stand up for him) and he says hi and then makes a short speech listing out what was accomplished over the legislative session. One thing I find interesting about Ritter, he lists out what he has accomplished in a matter of fact way so that you get the meat – but it's not terribly exciting the way he presents it. That hurts him politically.
4. There were a number of questions about the fireman's bill veto, that the firemen were upset with him, etc. He spoke directly to that laying out his reasons, first that this was about pay because it impacted just 11 fire districts, and second that he did not think the state should be telling those districts how to handle their contract negotiations – especially as some had voted down collective bargaining. He also talked about how his job requires telling supporters no sometimes and he believes that this will not impact his relations with the unions.
   My personal opinion is that this bill was one where the legislature passed it to make one of their interest groups happy and the Governor is then supposed to play the designated grown up. The true problem here is that this occurred on top of the lockout bill veto and as the second veto of the two, it's the one that has everyone's focus.
5. My favorite answer of his was when someone asked him to speak to the fact that there had been some tax exemptions removed, some new ones had also been added. And Ritter's response to that was – yeah, they do that every year. Direct, to the point, no bullshit answer. Same thing when someone asked him to respond to Wadhams saying he was doing a lousy job and he basically said that yeah, Wadhams will say that about anything he does.
6. Some discussion about addressing the mess in the constitution. I didn't catch why but apparently the next big thing is the ballot in '11 (why not '10 no one said). And the Gov did say that what can be done in legislation has been done and it will now take revising the constitution. He also spoke to the defeat of 59 and said that to be successful it will require a significant education effort.
7. Toward the end, as the lockout veto had only been mentioned in passing I asked about that. (I have no idea if he knew who I was when he pointed at me.) I asked him why the process around this was such a mess when it was an all Democratic capitol. And I then pointed out that when this bill arrived on his desk either signing or vetoing it impacted the negotiations so vetoing did have an impact. He did not look happy at how I phrased the second part of the question.
   Ok, so on part one he stated that one of his aides told Duran and his daughter (UFCW-7 is apparently changing it's name to Duran & Children) that it would be vetoed. And that another aide told the main legislators that it would be vetoed. He did not claim that he himself had said so, but he did state point blank that his aides had stated this. This was unequivocal – but we don't know what was actually said or how clear it was.
   On part two his argument is that contracts coming due now had their negotiations start back in the end of '08 when this legislation had not been introduced yet. And with a veto he kept things as they were when it started so it did not change the situation. So he owned up to the fact that a veto was impacting the negotiations – and he went for not changing the advantage of either side.
   In a one on one interview I would have followed up by asking if he thinks the present approach is fair. And if it's unfair, then is keeping the power balance in negotiations more important than righting bad law. But the venue does not allow for follow-up.
   What's a bit screwy in all this he said/she said and reasoning is that Ritter alluded that if the start date had been further out he would have been open to it. Yet that would have been an easy thing to accomplish in negotiations, especially for a Governor bragging about how he got the health insurers to move from opposed to neutral on the bill for autistic medical care. And he also talked about how if next year there were fewer contracts up – there are always hundreds of contracts expiring. The bottom line on this is everyone is spinning and we're left with a really unfair law.
8. So a couple more questions and then after answering one the Gov said thank you and turned and left. Lynn Bartels shouted a question to him as he left (channeling her inner Sam Donaldson) and he turned and smiled at her but did not break stride.

So that was it. And I don't think there was a single question about Ritter's successes. Even more than transportation, healthcare, etc is the fact that we are in a world of economic hurt and our state budget is getting everything covered and things are running well. Quiet competence is way underappreciated, but it is an impressive achievement in this climate.

I talked to Lynn Bartels afterwards when she asked me if I was media - I said I wasn't sure as I'm a blogger. She said she does read ColoradoPols and from a couple of comments it is clear she does. So Lynn – hi.

They also tried to get me a short one on one interview with the Governor either before and after but time did not allow – they are now shooting for next week. So all the suggested questions posted on Pols, I'm hanging on to the ones I think are the best for when that happens. I think the Governor realizes that the blogosphere is a key venue for an elected official now – although I will know better after asking him about this. Personally I think a candidate who is being hammered on the web, if they don't get their side presented, can be toast before the campaigning even starts (exhibit 1 is Bob Schaffer).

The Colorado state government helps certain classes of business. Large businesses, and businesses who have enough financial interests in front of the state. Both have lobbyists, consultants, etc. who work effectively to get their needs in front of our state's leaders. Sometimes they get their way. Sometimes they don't. But they get support.

And then you have businesses that the state chooses to pay attention to. In the case of the Ritter administration this falls into two groups, green energy businesses both in the state and ones they try to bring here. And targeted industries where they try to get companies to open facilities in Colorado (but ignore ones already in Colorado).

So who is missed in this? The vast majority of businesses in the state – small and medium businesses (aside from those industries who sell primarily to the state). Ok, so the state favors a few and ignores the rest – but we live in a free enterprise system. So shouldn't we just figure that's the way it is supposed to be (aside from those that Ritter chooses to elevate)?

Well, yes and no. Because it is in the state's interest to look at local businesses for two very important reasons. Reasons of self-interest. Reasons that will benefit the state and its residents.

First let's look at two companies that sell absolutely identical products, provide identical service, at the same price. So it makes no difference to the state, absolutely no difference, which it buys from. But if the state buys from a local company and because of those purchases has to hire 2 more people, then 2 people go off of unemployment and instead become taxpayers. Those two people move from the debit to the credit side of the state's ledger.

On the flip side, if the state buys from an out of state company, those two people remain on unemployment. So all things being equal, there is value to the state in purchasing locally.

Second let's look at two companies where one is a large multinational (i.e. out of state) and the other is a small (usually local) company. And the small company has a better product. The state is better off if it uses the better product. But the large company has a lock on the state where the state is not interested in looking at alternatives.

So the state spends more money than necessary, money that could otherwise go to underfunded parts of the state budget. And at the same time the state ends up with more unemployed and fewer taxpayers.

I am not proposing a repeat of the ultra-dumb Always Buy Colorado. The point is not to force purchases from local companies because that can saddle the state with inferior products.

Instead what I propose is to create an SBA for the state – a small group focused on making state agencies take a real look at local alternatives for products & services they buy. That's it – just make them fairly evaluate local companies as alternatives. The return to the state in reduced unemployment, increased tax revenue, and improved efficiencies should more than pay for this effort.

And to those that say, well of course the state does this – no it doesn't. To use a personal example, for two years we have attempted to get the OIT to take a look at our product. Not to buy it – just to look at it. We've got the state complaining that it can't create the reports required by the stimulus package – and we still can't get the state to even look at our system (which can do this better than what they have in place).

Even if Governor Ritter is not interested in supporting local businesses (unless they are very large or green), he should at least be interested in improving the efficiency of the state. One would think. Or if he doesn't care about improving the state's efficiency – at least pretend you're interested. Fake it so you build up some support in the business community and among the jobless.

And yes this diary means the state will never seriously look at my company. If in return this can get the state to look at other local businesses for the first time – that's worth it. Because Governor Ritter, your blowing off local businesses costs this state jobs and costs this state money. And in the present economic climate those costs are severe.

It's time this state gave our small & medium businesses equitable treatment.

I figured lets see what the blogosphere thinks.

Please go to my Windward Studios blog.