Your thoughts on President 2.0
 

By "President 2.0" I mean Barack Obama's campaign strategy of embracing the internet and all it has to offer. He's got his own social networking site (my.barackobama.com) and he's got a footprint on all the other established ones already (Facebook, YouTube, Flickr). The strategy seems to be reaching people it normally wouldn't and is getting people more involved in the campaign than I've personally seen before.

My mental image of a traditional presidential campaign is like a trench war with a dugout base of operations from which dirt and propaganda fly. This particular campaign as a suspiciously empowering effect on those who choose to get involved. Traditionally, it's been, "Just vote for me and I'll handle the rest." This new approach seems to really give people a sense of responsibility.

Howard Dean tried the blogs in 2004, but he had 2 things working against him. 1) Who the fuck is Howard Dean? 2) Who the fuck knew what a blog was 4 years ago? This time around, people know about Barack Obama because he's talked about more than Hillary, and everyone knows what a blog is. Hell, everyone has a fuckin' MySpace account.

My own opinion on the matter is that it's good, cheap marketing. I really have no way to tell if it's working or not. In fact, I don't know if either Barack or Hillary are riding their novelty or their principles. What I do know is that 12 months from now, all of the players are going to have a distinct presence online. What that means is the election may be swayed by the candidate with enough people who think he's "cool" instead of the issues themselves. But that's a maybe. One would like to think that democracy works FOR us rather than against us.

Right.

Obama is hoping that he can separate himself from Al and John. He wants to be a big guy with big ideas. He wants to appear "plugged in" to modern society and a great way of doing that is to earn the respect of the techno geeks, such as ourselves. I'm not sure if he's going to stick to his guns, but the only real way to know that is if he beats Hillary and becomes the next POTUS. I'm listening to his podcasts, and so far I'm impressed. If he can really get serious about green issues, he'll have my vote.

Cobb, if you're reading this, fight harder. The Green Party needs balls.

I'm encouraged because the fair and balanced "journalists" over at FNC have been desperately trying to dig up dirt on the guy and the BEST they've come up with is "oh my god! He smokes Marlboros and didn't tell everyone! Can you REALLY trust a guy who smokes and doesn't tell everyone?"

The blogging thing can only help him.

Edwards, has been doing it for awhile and Sherrod Brown blogged and really piled in the e-mails so what Obama is doing isn't that unique.

I see it as a double edged sword, when a candidate blogs, yes, he can see what major issues are..... but when someone replies and says something that can hurt the candidate, do you keep the comment in, maybe even respond to it, or do you censor and act like it didn't exist?

I know Edwards had a problem of that nature and said he would leave it in because he believed in free speech.... and free publicity over the ensuing controversy was gravy...... to some degree.

As Pan said, all of the present candidates have a website that has the candidate's entries, if not a wide open blog for public entries. That has been proven to be risky in the past. Edwards' staff made a terrible error in not checking the background of their hired blog experts.

When Arnold Schwarzenegger became the governor of Kallyfornea in 03, it was probably factually safe to say we as Americans are living in strange, strange times. Barack seems to be a standup guy - for a clean, black man - but I question his experience. He is a very green, clean black man. He is a gifted orator, which matters. Americans dislike listening to the rape and pillaging of the english language on a daily basis, I know I do. Obama is also a pretty man, which also counts with voters, especially gay men and women. It is kind of weird that a person with so close a name to earth's most notorious terrorist would show up on the scene of the American presidency, but I try not to get too paranoid about that. I've never in my life ever met a "Barack" either. Maybe he was born Barry Osbourne and changed his name for show business. Google Allen Konigsberg, for example.

Barack's website is like a dream. A dream of Hope. It is extremely well designed, with pleasantly subtle use of color, shape, font, and graphic. I don't like the usage of a square inside a circle on the front page, but such are the limitations of video-in-a-box on the internet. The thing Obama seems to do most on his website is smile, he has a tremendously effective smile; a smile that could perhaps melt the heart of the most insane theocratic mullah in Tehran for instance. He says all the right things for a Democrat in America circa 2007, such as "Protecting Our Homeland" and "Honoring Our Veterans", and he does it in such a way as not to needlessly worry people about terrorism. Points for that. There is even BarackTV, which caused my browser to crash.

President 2.0 is looking fine. If I have one complaint, it would be the lack of perspective. You are imprisoned inside the candidate's universe for the duration of your stay. It is like being in a casino or at DisneyWorld. There are no clocks or windows or any other reference points to the real world. We of course do have wingnuts at their posts 24/7/365 to sift through the muck and debris like mississippi river catfish.

Presidential candidate weblogs are a marvelous American invention. The experience is so much more richer and informative than it was even 10 years ago. I don't necessarily think the candidate with the best weblog will win the election. I see weblogs as the ketchup on the french fries of our presidential happy meal.

I don't get your point here. Are you saying that his race goes against him (which is certainly the impression I get from UK news coverage), or that a black guy per se can never be treated the same as a not-black guy?

As for the OP, this is a trend that is far from unique to the US - the most recent UK general electin saw all the main players fire up their tame geeks to design some quite slick ideas to "engage the public".

The odd thing is that in our current technologicalworld we have more capacity to communicate and involve ourselves than ever before, and yet turnout at the polls falls every election.

It's a puzler, fer sure. :oogle:

No, I'm not going against his race. One of our more egomaniacal senators, Joe Biden, had a racial "moment" where he referred to Obama thusly:

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

Followed by the obligatory apology:

Biden issued a statement Wednesday afternoon, saying: "I deeply regret any offense my remark in the New York Observer might have caused anyone. That was not my intent and I expressed that to Sen. Obama."

Some kind of Freudian slip no doubt. Maybe a spot to drink for Biden that night. It was probably racist, and defintely awkward, but both are Democrats so no harm, no foul I guess. Obama laughed it off and actually turned it around to his advantage. He's a very intelligent guy. I was just making fun of Biden. Sorry for any confusion.

That's exactly the thing that's so exciting about Obama. His approach--both to his competition and to his electorate--is fresh and empowering. He's relentlessly positive, which is a shockingly novel approach. I'm not sure we've EVER seen a candidate quite like him. Which means either he'll flame out in primaries, or he's our next President by a landslide.

It sounds like you're saying he is a young Ronald Reagan....with a brain.

I think that has been happening since at least the Kennedy / Nixon election... I think this will continue to happen as long as the average person cares more about dumb shit like Anna Nicole Smith's death than the government.

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." (H. L. Mencken)

I have listened to one of his books and read and listen to whatever I can find. I have decided I have been to casual in my take on government. I think BUsh has made alot of people that didnt really take politics seriously, want to know more about what they are getting into. I have liked what I have heard from Obama, and though he may not have alot of experience, he seems to get how the regular guy gets along in his life. Rather than some rich ass that was born with a silver spoon, telling me how I live, and taking away the rights a freedoms I should be enjoying as a "free' American. I personally am very excited by the outlook that Obama seems to be about,and yes his positive attitude. That gets anybody a long ways. Took me many years to learn that.

Hope we seem many good things from this man in the future.

If you do not consider the right to keep and bear arms a freedom you should be enjoying, then Obama is right for you.

If you think that a black child of Michael Jordan is more deserving of a place in college than the white child of Joe Lunchbucket, then Obama is right for you.

It took me many years to learn that appearance and personality don't always mean a person is the right choice for a specific job.

that right there will be the reason he doesn't win. He's on record for wanting to ban all semi-automatics of any kind...even the 'hunters' of illinois were shocked at that.

Americans overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons and Obama's position is not that different from Bill Clinton's who certainly wasnt hurt by his position.

Gun control is also hardly a defning issue for most americans....ranking nowhere near the top of any list of priorities like the Iraq war, the economy, terrorism, health care, immigration, education, taxes, or even abortion and gay rights.

Its a loser issue for you, DK.

You might want to check your facts. The last I heard, Obama spoke out against race-based affirmative action as too divisive and past its time...and in favor of some limited form of class-based affirmative action.

Jut as an aside, its bullshit like this that creeps into many discussions here (another example is ace's baseless declaration in another thread... "No matter how you look at it Democrats are weak on defense), based on innuendo, misinformation and blatantly false talking points spread by wingnut pundits and bloggers.

Perhaps that is why the quality and quantity of TFP political discussions have been on the decline.

That ban on nail files was not popular. They are "assault weapons." So are fists and feet.

The use of the phrase "assault weapons" reveals either a glaring lack of familiarity with the subject, or an attempt to deceive. Usually, it's an attempt to convince the uninitiated that a scary-looking rifle is an "assault weapon," since assault RIFLES are already regulated to the hilt.

As far as Bill Clinton, who "wasn't hurt by his position," did you happen to notice the result of the '94 election? It will be hard to downplay that upheaval, but I'm sure someone here will try.


Is that his position this week? I can't keep track of it.

As an aside, your entire post was weak/worthless/a straw man argument.

I haven't posted in politics in months. If you dislike the quality and quantity of political discussions of late, then introspection on your part would be appropriate.

Thank you for further making my case that ignorance prevails.

The Brady bill ban on assualt weapons passed in 1993 with bi-partisan support. (Its reauthorization had bi-partisan support and Bush's support 10 years later. It failed in 2004 as a result of parliamentary procedures in the House.) The 94 upheaval was the result of the Contract with America (brillilantly conceived and promoted, I admit, but nothing to do with gun control) Show me any analysis that ties the 94 election results to gun control.

Obama stated his position that race based affirmative action was divisive and outmoded in his book, The Audacity of Hope.

From an article in the conservative National Review:

Race-based affirmative action policies, he recognizes, have polarized the races, while race-neutral or “universal” programs unite them. “Rightly or wrongly, white guilt has largely exhausted itself in America; even the most fair-minded whites…tend to push back against suggestions of racial victimization — or race-specific claims based on the history of race discrimination in this country.”

Advocates of “class-based” or “race-neutral” affirmative action have been around a long time — even then-Governor George W. Bush supported “need-based” government contracting set-asides, as did many congressional Republicans in the 1990s. But, for the most part, no recent Democratic presidential aspirant has been as bold as Obama in discussing the problems with race-based affirmative action: “An emphasis on universal, as opposed to race-specific, programs isn’t just good policy; it’s also good politics.”

.

SO where are YOUR facts?

au contraire....Marv.....<b>If you are going to claim that you haven't posted here "in months", you can avoid looking like you look, now....if you don't make a claim like that, or if you actually have not posted. Also, if you are challenging an accusation like the one that dc_dux made, shouldn't the posts that you claim you did not author.....contain a tad less "eye rolling" and unsupported, partisan "digs", than what you've "served up"?</b> You were quite active here, just last month. A review of your "offerings" for the month of January, 2007, tends to reinforce dc_dux's argument, IMO:
....as for Obama....he will have to overcome the hurdles of his first and middle names, his race and religious background, and his lack of experience, as well as the "stuff" that will be dredged up about him and his family background, over the next 20 months.
Here is a sample of the "background" reporting that we can expect to read:
www.freerepublic.com/~beckwith/

I don't think he can overcome it all, and I think that his nomination will be headed off for my stated reasons......I'm going to support a candidate with less "baggage" and more experience....someone who can win, if one even emerges.

i just shot myself

The NRA was a convenient scapegoat, although I dont deny they can influence close House elections with their money. Nearly every analysis I have read about the 94 elections point to the Contract with American, which had no mention of gun rights, but was very effective in the suburbs on the issues that most people (unlike you) care about.

The NRA and its money has virtually no impact on Presidential elections, in which I addressed your false assumption about Obama's position.

I practice this kind of ignorance consistently!!!

Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House, , To Renew America, (HarperCollins, 1995), pp.201-202

There is part of your 'contract with america' and it's mention of gun rights.

I'm a life time memeber of the witless american program!!! :thumbsup:

Where in the Contract with America does it mention gun rights?

Show me how NRA money and Clinton's support for the (still fresh at the time) Brady bill hurt his reelection in 1996. You do recall how Bush supported its reauthorization as well?

Its cool with me....continue to ignore the facts and obsess over your guns...and watch the country pass you by in 08.

Stop, please. This is about Obama.

Its all yours, Will.

I am just about out of patience with and interest in the inanity of TFP politics where the facts dont seem to matter to some.

John McCain has his McCainSpace pages (that aren't working right now). But I like the new way of campaigning. It is more positive and doesn't cost as much. It gets people involved, but it might take the anonymity out of voting.

who is a gun control nut. I'm not the one who threadjacked.

pot, kettle, black.

I agree that the online presence is helpful and most serious candidates will have sites. In my opinion many of those who seek out political information online are usually well read and already have a political stance. I think online info may help more in the primaries than the general.

Once the general election begins though it is much more a popularity contest than a debate on the issues and Obama has a long way to go. At the local county bar the subject of Obama came up in a discussion I overheard and some in the small group thought that he is a terrorist. I know this sounds comical but these people vote.

That's kinda scarey. It looks like a PR nightmare. However, the buzz that originates online has frequently made its way into the mainstream. We've got a ways to go.

it has great potential for giving the people a voice, if, and only if, it isn't censored by some candidate's flack...

ever write an editorial and hope to see it in the paper and it's not... another opinion tossed and not heard...

ever try to talk to a candidate and recieve nothing but rhetoric...

it's hair-pulling, frustrating, "why do i even bother?" feeling of apathy...

if they post a blurb and show true feelings about their stance(s) they may actually read the responses...

one thing it may also show is the demographical differences throughout the country what they won't find on the back of a train, spending 15 minutes on a soapbox spewing "if i was president" blather...

i want to know that i've been heard and my voice has value...

i want honesty, (not some polished prose that "sounds good"), that has meat in its presentation... something i can chew on and respond to in kind...

(sheesh - i posted in politics... what's with that???)

What I think everyone has missed so far is the potential the web holds for radically changing the path money takes to candidates. The OP was correct to mention Howard Dean's 2004 campaign which was so wildly successful at raising donations in small amounts from individual donors. This scared the established powers on the Left (and Right) to the point that they helped orchestrate Dean's character assassination. It is interesting to see which candidates have thus far adopted Dean's strategy in getting supporters involved via blogs etc. We can assume that Obama or McCain will have a harder time tapping the established Union/Corporation lucre than Clinton or whomever Rove anoints.

The blogs are great and the web has been a good way to disseminate information about a candidate since 1996, but it's the $$$ that counts. Would you rather have a candidate supported by a few insurers or people who use healthcare? The ideal candidate would pair a web-based call for donations with a strict limit on donations to say $300 (Jerry Brown did $100, but that was 1992).