Jim Beam Launches Social Media Campaign.

Jim Beam is doing something interesting to promote white label. It's called a social media campaign. It was explained to me that social media "refers to conversation and community in the online space." Okay, I get it. Interactive. Like a blog.

They don't want to call this a campaign. They prefer "movement."

Here's the gist of it:

A crusade has begun. Jim Beam®, the world's number one selling bourbon, is thinking outside of the bottle in an entirely unconventional way by starting a movement to recognize, support and celebrate true character. By investing their multi-million dollar marketing budget into the success of selected individuals and organizations that represent the "Stuff Inside", (www.thestuffinside.com) Jim Beam is turning conventional marketing on its head.

By all means, visit the web site. It is the most content-rich web site I have seen from any beverage brand, although I can't say I spend a lot of time looking at sites for beverages that aren't whiskey.

But a warning to all of my whiskey-enthusiast friends. There isn't hardly anything on it about whiskey.

Apparently, that's the point.

(Go to www.jimbeam.com for the whiskey part. The "Brotherhood of Bourbon" lives on too, as does Beam Racing. Maker's Mark, Knob Creek, and the Small Batch Collection all have their own sites. Jim Beam has many web sites.)

Is it truly unconventional? We used to call this integrated marketing. One of the things I love about marketing, after 35 years in the business, is that the basic principles and techniques don't change very much, but every few years everything gets renamed.

So I don't know how unconventional it is, but they are pulling it off much better than most.

I like the way they are using it to tie a lot of existing initiatives together, like their racing, music and comedy sponsorships, which they've been doing for years.

I also like that they let the "It's What's Inside That Counts" theme get well established before they introduced this double-meaning. They were patient enough to wait until just the right time to expand the meaning this way. That's very sophisticated branding. It's very hard for marketers these days to take the long view, even when the long view is part of the brand's positioning.

There is one, small, quibbly problem with the whole package, however. It's the fundamental claim that Beam whiskey hasn't changed since 1795, a span of 213 years. It's a great metaphor, a nice way of saying that their whiskey has been made by the same family for 213 years, using methods passed down from father to son (and the occasional uncle or cousin). All of that is absolutely true.

But taken literally in reference to the whiskey itself, it's problematic, since no whiskey sold today is like whiskey was 213 years ago, and you wouldn't want it to be. That goes for Beam whiskey and everybody else. Whiskey then wasn't aged, the stills were different, the alcohol content was different. As for the Jim Beam brand itself, it is a post-Prohibition creation, so less than 75 years old.

What would be a good, smart, sophisticated, pro-active way to make all that a positive? De-emphasize the theme's literal meaning and build up its application as a metaphor.

Color me impressed.

But Above All, Try Something.

A friend pointed me in the direction of Jack Kelly's piece today on Real Clear Politics entitled, "Obama Needs a History Lesson." Kelly found something in Barack Obama's Tuesday night speech "that is all the more remarkable for how little it has been remarked upon."

Here's what Kelly wrote:

In defending his stated intent to meet with America's enemies without preconditions, Sen. Obama said: "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did."

That he made this statement, and that it passed without comment by the journalists covering his speech indicates either breathtaking ignorance of history on the part of both, or deceit.

The gist of what follows is that Roosevelt and Truman never talked to Germany or Japan, our WWII enemies. And if Obama meant the Soviet Union (as he obviously did), that's wrong because they were our ally at the time. No, really, that's what he wrote. Read it for yourself.

Then he wraps it up the way you knew he would, by comparing Obama to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French premier Eduoard Daladier.

Kelly's article is little more than a nice riff. It's a nice excuse for a history lesson, but ridiculous beyond that. Obama's reference to Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy talking to our enemies was as innocuous as it seemed.

Of course Obama was referring to those presidents having talked to the Soviet Union. Calling the Soviet Union our "ally" is only fair if you put it in context, which Kelly does not. The United States was hostile to the Soviet Union from the moment it came into being. The Jack Kellys of every decade of the 20th century told us the Soviet Union was our greatest enemy.

Kelly talks about Obama being historically-ignorant but makes an argument only someone truly ignorant of history would buy. Nice try, but no dice.

The United States can use its power in a lot of different ways. Withholding talks is one way to leverage it. Giving people a forum and, in effect, enough rope to hang themselves is another way. The real point, I think, is that a powerful nation can afford to be magnanimous. We don't always have to be the tough guy.

What has excited so many people about an Obama presidency is the possibility of trying something really different, daring to approach things in new ways, and letting our power translate itself into a different kind of courage and confidence.

It was Roosevelt, after all, who repudiated Hoover's inaction on the Depression saying, shortly after he took office, "It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something."

It was also Roosevelt who said:

"Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough."

Of course, one has to consider the policies of the current administration a colossal failure to want something so radically new, but that's the way I feel and millions of other people feel that way too.

Just Read John Kass.

There are some days when I want to write something but all I really need to say is, "just read John Kass."

This is one of those days.

It's Not Race, Nor Religion, It's Politics.

I would think that any longtime church-goer would be rattled by the notion that he or she might be called to account for some nutty thing the pastor might have said from the pulpit some Sunday. Have you ever listened to a sermon and thought, "gee, I hope no one thinks I believe what he just said just because I'm sitting here." If you go to church, has such a thought ever crossed your mind? Exactly! It didn't cross Obama's mind either.

My golly, some of the things Monsignor Hebbler used to say about Protestants. I didn't understand a lot of them, but I'm sure they wouldn't look good on YouTube.

For that matter, if you go to church, can you remember what was taught last week? The week before? Especially when the sermon gets symbolic, how closely do you really pay attention?

None of this is racial. It has nothing to do with the Black Church or Liberation Theology. It's politics. It's what has been dubbed the politics of personal destruction. It is one of the practices Obama decries. The particular variety at work here is guilt by association. The trick is to concentrate all attention on the nefarious traits of the associate, not on the nature of the association. Explanations of the nature of the relationship are irrelevant. The inference, accepted as fact, is that knowing all about this bad other person tells us something crucial about the principal, in this case, Senator Obama, when in fact it may tell us nothing at all.

In 1995, I attended a law school class in which Bernardine Dohrn was a guest speaker. Does that mean I endorse everything she said that day? Does it mean I endorse everything she has ever said and done? How does that differ from what is being attempted with Obama? I say "being attempted" because I don't think it's changing any minds. The people stoking these fires oppose him for other reasons. Like I said, it's just politics.

And, as politics, it smacks of desperation. Is that all you've got? A nutty old preacher and two aging student radicals from 40 years ago? Please, here's a free one. Go back to Rezko. That's the interesting story. Of course, that's also a story of high-level bi-partisan looting of the public treasury. Why would we want to pay attention to that?

Remember 7th grade civics? That's the last time I believed that the way people ran for office was they stood up, gave a true account of what they believed and what they intended to do if elected, and then the voters chose the person whose ideas and proposals appealed to them the most. Obama seems to be doing exactly that. I say "seems" because I haven't consumed all of the Kool Aid yet, but what would be so bad about having a president who is young, idealistic, smart, sensible, articulate, well-educated, thoughtful, handsome, a good dancer, and not from privilege but from a modest and very diverse background?

Calling one of today's few major national political figures who is not from privilege an out-of-touch elitist is politics. Also irony and, quite possibly, parody.

But back to Jeremiah Wright. It is in the nature of symbolic speech for individuals to read it differently. You read the American flag one way, someone else reads it a different way. When you condemn that person, what are you really condemning them for? Not thinking like you? How has their different reading harmed you? Or has it benefited you by showing you a way to read the symbol that you hadn't considered, a way you may ultimately reject, but how has being exposed to another person's thought process, maybe part of that person's experience, an experience that is different from your own, harmed you?

By the same token, the meaning you attach to the words "God damn America" is personal. It may not be the meaning another person takes away or what the speaker intended. As I interpret it, all Wright was saying, in the context of a teaching and pastoring address to a voluntary audience, was that God may, in fact, have a harsher judgment in mind for America's behavior than a blessing.

Pat Robertson, among others, has expressed similar sentiments, that America deserves to be punished, not praised, for some of its actions. He would cite different reasons than Wright does, but it's the same idea. "Don't be so proud of yourself, America; you ain't all that."

I'm not saying I agree with the sentiment, I'm just asking what is so shocking or damning or dangerous about it, especially if all the real target of this did was sit in the room with a lot of other people while it was being said?

See Heather Carry Water For The Machine.

For my fellow politically-frustrated Illinoisans, spend a moment with this editorial from today's Chicago Tribune.

The hapless Senator Steans is my State Senator. Last year, the incumbent senator from the 7th District announced that she would not stand for reelection because she was joining the Blagojevich administration. She also announced that, after the primary, she would resign her office so that the winner of the Democratic primary could be appointed to fill her unexpired term. The announcement was unexpected and carefully timed to leave a minimal amount of time for potential successors to decide to run and secure a ballot position. Heather Steans just happened to be ready. One opponent, who helped expose the charade, managed to scramble and get on the ballot too.

In the campaign, Steans called herself an "independent Democrat," but she has shown herself to be machine through-and-through, her sad water-carrying today being only the most vivid example.

For more background about what passes for democracy in Illinois, go here.

The point of the Tribune's editorial was that we residents of Illinois should contact our senators and let them know where we stand; on the recall amendment as well as the income tax amendment. I say recall-recall-recall, and let's not give the guy any more tax money in the meantime. (Illinois has a flat rate income tax. The amendment would double the rate for persons with incomes over $250,000/year.)

So I wrote to my State Senator. Here's what I wrote:

Dear Senator Steans,

I just read the Tribune editorial from today. Welcome to life as a machine politician.

I am one of your constituents. I voted for your opponent. I didn’t know anything about you, but didn’t like the way you got your office. From your campaign materials, you seemed like a nice person. It’s a familiar story. You want to get involved in the political process in a serious way and make a difference, but in Chicago there is only one way in. If you’re on the outside you can’t do anything. On the inside you might be able to do something. So you take the deal.

Today you got a good dose of why it’s a lousy bargain, even if there isn’t any better one available.

But maybe you liked the Tribune’s editorial. It said your seat is safe for as long as you want it, but you know that’s not true. You know it’s safe only as long as you’re on the team. Just see what happens if you start to think and speak and vote for yourself, instead of according to party discipline.

It’s hard to hate the machine. We like the bread and circuses. But at the end of the day it’s just not democracy.

So for the record, please vote for placing the recall amendment on the fall ballot. I also oppose changing the income tax under the present circumstances.

The Best Bourbon Is Free Bourbon.

I get this a lot. "What's the best bourbon?" Or the equally problematic, "what's your favorite bourbon?"

What do I say? I may mention a couple of things I particularly like, although the list always varies. I often dismiss the query with, "the best bourbon is free bourbon."

The truth is, the list of things I like about equally well is very long, and what I say tends to reflect what I've enjoyed most in the last week or so. Recently it was Four Roses Single Barrel. Sometimes it's Woodford Reserve or Knob Creek or Buffalo Trace.

I tend not to mention the cheaper products I also like just as well, such as JTS Brown. I also generally don't mention products that are difficult or impossible to find, such as Very Very Old Fitzgerald or A. H. Hirsch. I also tend not to mention the more challenging older bottlings, like George T. Stagg.

I also don't mentions rye (unless specifically asked) or corn whiskey.

But I never give the true answer, which is that there is no best and hardly any true favorites. If I narrow the words used to describe the experience, I can plug in a few products. Most memorable would have to be Very Very Old Fitzgerald and A. H. Hirsch, but also the Fairfield Henry McKenna my friend Doug found and shared with me. Always in my house and open: Old Fitzgerald Bottled-in-Bond and Very Old Barton Bottled-in-Bond. I can name a favorite from each distillery, although if they make multiple recipes then it's one per distillery per recipe. And, like I said, it will change tomorrow.

So let's bury the concept of best, which is the search for The One. That's not what the whiskey enthusiasm is about. It's about luxuriating in The Many. And hoping for many, many more.

My New Friend, Jason, in Baghdad.

When I got this picture, I was blown away. Let me tell you about it.

The man in the picture is Jason Hughes. He is a Captain in the Army Medical Service Corps currently deployed for a 15 month tour to Baghdad, Iraq. He is the accountable officer and logistician for TF62 Medical Brigade out of Fort Lewis, Washington. This information, and the picture, is posted with his permission.

The building behind him is the Al Faw Palace, former home of Saddam Hussein and current headquarters of the Multi-National Corps-Iraq (MNC-I).

The book in his hand is mine, BOURBON, STRAIGHT: The Uncut and Unfiltered Story of American Whiskey. In a post on StraightBourbon.com, Jason mentioned that he had the book and liked it. I noticed his location and commented that I thought it was cool my book was in Iraq.

Taking this picture and posting it on the web was Jason's idea. When I thanked him and told him I was blown away he wrote, "I am glad that I found something interesting to learn about. Most of the time we don't get to show our appreciation for the people that help us discover and provide the history that enhances the enjoyment of new hobbies."

Jason's unit is comprised of more than 3,200 Service Members dispersed over 47 different locations within Iraq. They provide command-and-control for three U.S. Army combat support hospitals in six locations within Iraq, and one Air Force theater hospital, that provide forward life-saving surgical intervention, hospitalization and ancillary services; and two multifunction medical battalions that control the health service support functional areas of evacuation, area medical support, and medical regulating, preventive medicine, medical logistics and blood management, combat stress, laboratory services, veterinary services, dental services and health information systems.

Jason's wife is a CPA and works for the Washington State Auditors Office. Jason will hit his six year mark in the military in May, with most of that time spent in Korea (15 months) or Iraq (27 months). His hobbies include running (five marathons under his belt and he is running one this weekend in Iraq), reading and spending time with his wife.

I don't think I can do justice to all of the thoughts and emotions I have had due to this chance encounter. Most of the words in this post are actually Jason's and I think I'll leave it that way.