Not surprising the use of social networks among young people as a way of learning about the campaign is now an important tool and the use of local news by all surveyed is down, markedly since the 2000 election.

For those looking to show a revolution in online campaigning the research doesn’t provide it. Instead a very large percentage of those surveyed (52%) say they came across campaign information while doing something else online rather than solely seeking it out. Meanwhile while Internet dominates those 30 and younger, those 30+ still get the majority of their campaign information from traditional media.

So as one would expect the use of the Internet in learning about the election is up but still has a long way to go.

Glamour has invited all of the candidates to either guest blog or answer questions and Senator John McCain will be next.

Not many Republicans are seen as really using the Web effectively, other than some brief Mitt Romney and John McCain mentions. For the most part I found it interesting that many of us who were asked to comment agreed on most of the answers.

Thanks to techPresident for letting me be involved!

It is pretty slick looking app.

On the weekend of October 27, 2007, the Internet was suddenly bombarded with a rash of spam emails promoting U.S. presidential candidate Ron Paul. The spam run continued until Tuesday, October 30, when it stopped as suddenly as it began. At the same time, political blogs began to light up, accusing the campaign (or at least its ardent supporters) of running a criminal botnet for political purposes. We decided to cut through the spin and take a closer look at this botnet to determine its origins and shine some light on who might be responsible.

Ars Technica broke it down a little clearer

the recent flurry of Ron Paul spam originated from a Reactor botnet controlled by a commercial spammer through a colocation facility in the US.

Researchers: Ron Paul campaign e-mails originating from spambots
The researchers analyzed header elements of the spam e-mails to trace them back to zombie systems that were infected with the Srizbi trojan, an unusual piece of malware with highly advanced features.

I have been warning net-evangelists for a year now not to discount so easily the power of television or what is and will undoubtedly continue to be candidates reliance on it. The Internet is powerful, it is an amazing way to disseminate information and raise money, but in sheer capacity to influence television is still king.

The early education plan will be paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years, using purchase cards and the negotiating power of the government to reduce costs of standardized procurement, auctioning surplus federal property, and reducing the erroneous payments identified by the Government Accountability Office, and closing the CEO pay deductibility loophole. The rest of the plan will be funded using a small portion of the savings associated with fighting the war in Iraq.

• Reform No Child Left Behind
• Reward effective teaching
• Make math and science a national priority in education

He would pay for a number of his initiatives by delaying a plan for the United States of America to return to the moon and be a stepping stone for human exploration of Mars. This leaves me wondering how we can make science and math a national priority for students while canceling an initiative that would make America competitive with China, Russia, India & Japan while creating scientific discoveries that could fuel our economy not to mention inspire child. A five year delay would likely remove any competitive edge the U.S. has over other nations.

Senator Barack Obama released an education plan that would amongst other things:

More Details of the Plan
Here are some highlights of what the plan would do:

Reforming No Child Left Behind – The policy states that the Senator believes in the fundamental idea of NCLB but wants to change specific laws he sees as flawed. First amongst them is the assessment process or overall the notion that students spend their academic year preparing for tests that are not always accurate measures of learning.

There is no specific proposal for alternative assessments just a thought that they should be reformed, they will look into alternatives and fund states to look into alternatives.

Zero to Five – Is the Obama plan for focusing attention and money on childhood learning that starts at infancy and continues through school. $10 Billion would be spent by the federal government to fund state “zero to five” programs. This funding would help quadruple the number of eligible children for Head Start program, provide affordable and high-quality child-care, create universal pre-school and would convene a council that would focus energy and create collaboration between local, state and federal governments.

Obama would also fund a number of grants for early childhood education and tax credits.

The New York Times has an article by Saul Hansell looking into the use of online advertising networks and how campaigns are utilizing them with often undesired effect. The big example given is the appearance of Mitt Romney ads on Gay.com however it is a problem I’ve hardly seen limited to that one candidate or incident.

The issue boils down to this. Campaigns use services offered by Advertising.com, Adsense and other ad networks to get their message on Web sites. Keywords, especially in the case of Adsense, are used to decide where those ads are placed. Campaigns have the ability to remove themselves from some sites, to geo-target in specific areas and do a number of other things to ensure their message hits the right kind of people but it is the network which largely decides where best to place the ads.

The problem? These networks and the technology they run on are still being born and perfected. Because of this many of these systems, unless they have heavy watch by humans, ads often get places where they shouldn’t be. Some ads might look to a computer like they fit some sites because of keywords used. Barack Obama ran into a similar problem as Romney earlier in the year with the keyword ‘politics’ and I see John McCain ads on sites everywhere and often in the last places political candidates would ever want to sponsor.

Because advertising supports Web sites the exchange can be seen as money spent “in support” of these spaces even though the network itself places the ad and not the campaign. Should this be the case?

On one hand a sane person wouldn’t expect that an ad by a corporation placed in a newspaper is that corporations endorsement of every story or editorial that surrounds it. Likewise we could not assume that a newspaper endorses every product and business practice of a company simply because they run their ads. We don’t always live in a sane world with sane people though.

In politics advertising is constantly used as a way to attack and subvert opposition. When radio and television hosts and personalities say something people don’t like, the first thing opposition groups do is target sponsors. When groups run ads, the first thing opposition groups do is target the publisher.

Whether this is a logical or acceptable form of attack is almost never questioned. The decision to drop advertising or refuse an ad is a decision not made through the eyes of the law but through the court of public opinion and we have just accepted that advertising is in some way an endorsement of content.

Web sites and online ad campaigns are not immune. Add to the charged nature of political advertising and public opinion the fact that much of what we see on the Web is so outside of the mainstream and so profane in language, imagery and ideology. In this environment candidates run a risk of having their name and message associated with something they might find repugnant and could turn public opinion against them.

The problem for all the candidates is even though they hire a network to provide a service they cannot escape the perception it is the campaign itself which is approving every individual site for their ad. I suspect this won’t be the last we see of misplaced online ads.

The campaign is arguing that use of the footage represents the “very essence” of the first amendment and the freedom of political speech and that FOX, which benefited from the candidates appearance by selling commercial time.

While I agree and argued the other day that debate footage should be free I do have to protest and say Romney and the others could have EASILY worked this out long ago by refusing to appear on the stage unless FOX released the copyright to all footage.

Earlier in the year there was momentum from Democrats to keep debate footage copyright free and open to the public. That quickly died and since that point both parties have held their debates and forums with organizations that reserve copyright. That hasn’t stopped the candidates from posting clips of their favorite moments on YouTube.

In short, in some ways this is just deserts for the current and former Senators and Representatives running who have been a part of an institution that has made copyright almost endless. Ensuring that Mickey Mouse is kept safe for Disney but also that moving images, sounds and pictures that are important to the public interest are kept under lock and key.

It is silly for public figures running for office to allow corporations to keep the rights to footage that is vital to the public interest and could heavily influence or at the very least add to a voters perceptions and choices. It is asinine that these corporations not only run ads before and after the debates, but now run them during the debates as well, profiting off of public servants the night it airs and then reserving the right to profit again off the footage ad nauseam.

In my simple opinion no candidate should walk to a podium with the knowledge that the public will not be allowed to view and share their performance as often as they like. If like a traditional hypocrite they do and then turn around and put the footage on their own Web sites or in their ads, then frankly they should be sued into oblivion and face the nightmarish repercussions all copyright violators and file sharers do. Many of these people were the ones who made the laws, now they should have fun living with them like the rest of us do.

Page two goes into it with a little more detail along with how Mitt Romney may have become the favored Republican candidate of the Drudge Report and how that came at John McCain’s expense. This is the meat of the article and of big interest to those playing along at home.

Overall the main thrust of the article and the idea we should all pay attention to is how and why one man from outside the mainstream of journalism, punditry, television and fancy Web design has become so influential in politics and news and so courted by political operatives.

It is a testament to the power of the Internet and love him or hate him of one man. I also think it is an important lesson. All the fancy Web 2.0 gadgets popping up in political circles still pale in comparison to the viewership of Drudge and its liberal alternative Huffington Post. What do these sites do? They bring you the news in a simple, easy to follow and dare I say it, in a traditional way that seems to work.

There is a lot to look at and consider there.

There is some evidence that e-mail is not solely responsible. Consider the following. This week Obama:

• Gave a speech and held 3 town halls on the 16th
• Appeared to a national television audience on the Tonight Show With Jay Leno on the 17th
• Held 3 Town Halls & made 1 Appearance on the 18th
• Today will hold a rally and have four appearances, three in California (think Hollywood)


Meanwhile the campaign has brought in John Del Cecato to form a War room and step up the Clinton attacks.

So what we know is that in the same time the e-mails were sent Obama worked quite a few appearances, those in attendance could have turned up online to give money. His campaign reformed his message which has a much more negative tone, something voters and larger contributors respond well to. He appeared on national television, which was subsequently covered on 24/7 cable networks as well as local news and on radio programs across the country, not to mention funneled through print and the blogosphere. Finally the campaign received a new voice in the communications staff and undoubtedly made new appeals to bundlers and donors with lots of money who were weary from all the recent Clinton hype.

So can we hand it solely to e-mail? I don’t think so. Can we assume that these are all individual contributors sitting online who were suddenly mobilized by said e-mails? We don’t know. I see no other information on the official site that shows us where the money is coming from and with the way the campaign counts contributions (T-shirts as individual contributors) I don’t know if it was there that we could assume much from it.

My point is, I think the e-mails and the Web presence helped, but with all the other campaigning, television coverage and undoubtedly bundling (especially tonight where I am sure Hollywood will give and help push them past the goal) I don’t necessarily think we can pass this off as e-mail’s triumph.

The lesson for Republicans and the other campaigns instead may be simple. Get a message and stay on it and milk it in every medium you can.

]]> http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/10/19/dont-give-e-mail-all-the-credit/feed/ 2 http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/10/17/10questionscom/ http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/10/17/10questionscom/#comments Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:00:33 +0000 Election_Geek http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/10/17/10questionscom/ If affordable health insurance is one of the issues that tops your list of questions, make sure you do your research. Health insurance policies in California differ from medical coverage policies in New York, so get the facts straight before you take a stand.

Have a question for the candidates? Pull out the webcam and ask them at 10questions.com a new site produced by the good people of techPresident in associated with the NY Times & MSNBC. You upload, the Web decides and the top 10 get asked to the candidates. So make sure to stop by and participate.

]]> http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/10/17/10questionscom/feed/ 0 http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/10/14/is-new-media-reaching-iowa/ http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/10/14/is-new-media-reaching-iowa/#comments Sun, 14 Oct 2007 16:29:09 +0000 Election_Geek http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/10/14/is-new-media-reaching-iowa/ Julie Bosman writing in the New York Times (mirrored at MSNBC) writes about the inability for “new media” to reach voters in Iowa.

“It’s clearly true,” said Joe Trippi, a senior adviser to former Senator John Edwards, “that blogs and Web sites, and even some of the cool stuff that our team is doing in Iowa, has got less of an impact in Iowa.”

The article notes the older population in Iowa as one of the reasons why new media might not be reaching older voters but to be honest, I believe Iowa is a pretty good reflection of the impact nationally. Overall the article also notes my own general idea of what this “new media” is used for around the country. Basically building up buzz and filtering information into traditional media, not necessarily directly reaching voters.

At the end of the day let’s face facts here. The number of friends a candidate has on MySpace and Facebook will undoubtedly have no relationship to the number of votes they receive. Will it effect fundraising? Of course. Will it help organize efforts? Definitely. Will my parents and grandparents who are the most likely to vote in droves be influenced directly by Internet votes? Nope.

So though its 100% necessary for every campaign to have an online presence I see with Obama & Edward’s the consequence of relying too much on that medium to reach real voters. Both have raised money, both have caused “buzz” but both are trailing in polling and falling behind in MSM influence.

If I had any advice for Edward’s & Obama it would be this. It’s time to stop worrying about Facebook, MySpace, blogs and Adwords and time to start getting into television, radio and courting influence with journalists in Iowa, New Hampshire and nationally.

]]> http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/10/14/is-new-media-reaching-iowa/feed/ 0 http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/10/10/clinton-talks-broadband-access-in-new-hampshire/ http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/10/10/clinton-talks-broadband-access-in-new-hampshire/#comments Wed, 10 Oct 2007 21:30:19 +0000 Election_Geek http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/10/10/clinton-talks-broadband-access-in-new-hampshire/ In New Hampshire Clinton talked expanding broadband access and threw in a Stephen Colbert reference as well:

She invoked a half-dozen past Presidents – from Abraham Lincoln to Dwight Eisenhower – and compared expansion of broadband access to the creation of the transcontinental railroad system and the interstate highways.

And borrowing from Stephen Colbert, the Comedy Central host, Mrs. Clinton repeated her familiar lines of attack on the Bush administration, saying that Mr. Bush has waged a “war on science.”

“To paraphrase Stephen Colbert, that great philosopher, this administration doesn’t make decisions based on facts, it makes facts based on decisions,” she said.

]]> http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/10/10/clinton-talks-broadband-access-in-new-hampshire/feed/ 1 http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/10/07/designing-for-dial-up/ http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/10/07/designing-for-dial-up/#comments Sun, 07 Oct 2007 19:02:30 +0000 Election_Geek http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/10/07/designing-for-dial-up/ As I mentioned while I was away on a cruise ship the Internet was very expensive to use. It was also VERY slow. Loading a page took forever.

I was happy to see that Election Geek loaded pretty quickly. There are some more design things I can do to speed it up, for instance some of the graphics can be optimized and shrunk but thankfully the only elements that were slow to load were the ads. Luckily the rest of the page would pop-up and then the ads would take their time. Which is fine. I am going to look at different ways of ensuring that the rest of the page always loads first and then the ads load second if at all. The content is what is important for users and if an ad hasn’t loaded in the first four seconds they are just moving on to the next page where the ad won’t load anyway.

I decided while I was online to check out some of the official campaign sites to see if they too loaded fast. It was a pretty broad mix.

I will say both Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama’s pages loaded fairly quickly. Not perfect, but not turtle speed either.

Fred Thompson’s took forever. The initial index page with pictures and the “please donate” and the “Click here to skip this page” nonsense that people always employ and annoys the heck out of me didn’t fully load. I actually turned the page off before it could because it was eating away at my Internet time.

Meanwhile Rudy Giuliani’s site didn’t even load, I had some kind of weird error from the server. Not my browser, the server. For a site that has almost nothing good going for it, I wasn’t entirely surprised. John Edward’s was also still crawling up when I hit the “logoff” button a minute or so in. I don’t have a minute to waste on a family portrait and a few buttons.

At $.50 a minute I did not want to load every campaign site but it did remind me of something that all Web designers should be reminded of as well. Not everyone in the world or the country has high speed Internet.

Really, I know its hard to believe but they don’t. Many people even use iPhones and Treo’s and other mobile devices to get to Web pages. These people don’t have T1 lines, they have simple browsers with fairly slow connections. So yes, I know all those pages of pictures and those graphics heavy templates look nice, but for those people living in rural America, catching net access from overloaded coffee shop wifi or connecting on mobile devices or from parts of the world that employ satellite Internet, your message will not be seen.

This message is even more important for sites looking to build everything in Web 2.0 world. That AJAX heavy application might be fun to play with but for a person who just wants to get on a site, find out what a candidates position on Health Care is and move on, it won’t do a lot. Election Geek heavily relies on a mysql database accessed with PHP and the application WordPress.

WordPress does an amazing job of loading when the template isn’t heavily overburdened. The rest of the site I try and write quick code that grabs the info, does a few calculations, spits out the results and closes the connection as fast as possible. Granted there is very little user interaction here but it shouldn’t take five minutes to load up a form and then have it pass the results even if you are trying to customize the experience.

Most of the candidate sites seem to use the EXACT SAME content management system. A system which undoubtedly has dozens of modules that can do all kinds of fun stuff but seems a little bloated. (For all the money being spent on Web by the campaigns you would think some of this stuff could be built from the ground up in a unique way! Granted that is not all the campaigns, but it seems like a good chunk.) But that is a whole other blog post.

I mention this because, as nice as building up pages and having the campaigns go out of their way for those of us who are normally on blazing connections, the real voters who don’t spend 24/7 on the sites in-house MySpace forum thingy aren’t going to wait around. THESE are the people campaigns want to hit. Why? Because these people haven’t had a chance to drink the Kool-Aid. They probably won’t either, but they could vote for a candidate if they see similar ideas, values and commitments. They won’t be on the site 24/7 but that is not what a candidate should be looking for. They should be looking for a vote and possibly a donation. How do you do this? By enticing the voter. Not with gadgets but with ideas, solutions, platforms etc.

I am 100% for fancy Web sites and applications. Remember though campaigns are about running for president, not emperor of cyberspace. All those studies that show people are looking online for information are probably true. People read news sites, blogs and probably stop by official campaign sites to see what the candidate they are interested in is doing. It is a giant leap though to believe these people are ready to donate their lives to an online campaign or that they are accessing the Web at an MIT lab on Internet 2.

There are real voters out there and some of them have real slow connections. So official campaign people, please make sure you build your sites for them too.

]]> http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/10/07/designing-for-dial-up/feed/ 2 http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/09/07/continuing-the-campaign-blogging-discussion/ http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/09/07/continuing-the-campaign-blogging-discussion/#comments Fri, 07 Sep 2007 17:57:21 +0000 Election_Geek http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/09/07/continuing-the-campaign-blogging-discussion/ Cross-posted at techPresident.

I am glad to see that a post I wrote Candidates’ Blogs: Glorified Public Relations? has received some good discussion in the comments section at techPresident as well as some other blogs. On MYDD user Psericks wrote a critique of my post that is generating even more discussion. So I thought it would be good to follow-up on that critique and further explore the issue.

I find it interesting that there hasn’t been a great deal of opposition to my main argument, that the current state of official paid-by-the-campaign blogging isn’t very interesting. We all seem to agree it isn’t the bloggers themselves, many of whom are very talented, but perhaps the limitations of the environment. If we can generally agree that these blogs are not effective, or at least not as effective as they could be, we have to figure out what the limitations are.

Psericks questions my assertion that the flaw is fundamental. I said “the problem with these blogs isn’t entirely the fault of the bloggers but the premise, which is you take a bunch of people and have them write positively about a campaign.” I stand by that assertion not as a reflection that they can never work but as a reality check of our expectations on the difference between paid-for-blogging and the political blogosphere most of us are used to reading.


An important aspect of my assertion is the logical constraints of a campaign. In a campaign the candidate is the decision maker as well as the product that the organization works to further and sell to the public. The campaign can be seen as a model for the presidency. If a person runs an effective campaign a voter assumes it is a sign, rightly or wrongly, that they will run an effective administration. The other way to look at this is that a campaign can also be effective when through perception they convince voters that the opposition is incapable of running an effective administration and achieving like-minded objectives.

When advisors or speechmakers or any staffers become more vocal or visual than the candidate, when they provide messages that are counter to that campaigns administration and focus, the voter doesn’t see an avenue of depth, they see chaos. We bloggers are completely different. We live off the niche and the counter, we like to challenge and comment and create movements and discussions.

What appeals to me about most blogs is either that they are written by people I already know in the MSM/establishment or they are written by people who are not controlled in any way, shape or form by the MSM or by direct corporate, military, governmental or religious influence. I like the idea that if they support a candidate or position, they tell me so. Not because they are employed by a campaign but because it’s the way they feel.

Bloggers hired by a campaign are employed to spread the official messages and keep the debate civil and controlled. These posts, as I pointed out, are often predictable, uninteresting and just an extension of the overall PR. We understand who is paying the bills as readers and over time this makes the writers points seem less credible as they are no longer unique but just extensions of the campaign message.

Bloggers working for a campaign are digital press secretaries. The current White House Press Secretary Tony Snow was a conservative radio host and FOX News contributor. In those roles he could and sometimes did challenge the administration and their positions even though he encouraged people to support them. His role has now changed; he must tow the administration line even if he personally has questions about their message. This limitation is part of the job, it is the straightjacket of employment and most of us who work for someone else have similar constraints in our nine to five.

Our expectations of official bloggers then need to reflect this reality. Psericks mentions Obama’s campaign in which there is an official blog and then a community forming under my.BarackObama.com where people have somewhat free rein to blog. The same system exists at John Edwards site. I’ve spent time reading through the community aspect and I find examples that reinforce my assertion.

These community posts are far more interesting than what is on the official blog. They are also filled with rather pointed and at times harsh criticisms of Senator Hillary Clinton and some of the other candidates. There is a lot happening there that would be embarrassing if it seemed to be officially endorsed by the Obama or Edwards’ campaigns and would run counter to the official message, which is one of “new politics” of “hopefulness” and “bringing change” to the political debate.

On an official blog we should expect to see nothing but campaign-speak. That these bloggers will almost always tow the campaign line and speak the campaign rhetoric. It is a necessary function of their job and would be a distraction otherwise.

Does that mean they must be boring, redundant and scream PR? No! Campaign bloggers have to find ways of making their blogs an extension of the message and the candidate but still useful and unique to a reader. Something needs to change because we don’t have the best this medium has to offer yet. As I have argued, I think the end product will look slightly different than the unfiltered and independent political blogging we are often used to. So what can and should this experience look like?

]]> http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/09/07/continuing-the-campaign-blogging-discussion/feed/ 0 http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/09/06/the-folksy-clintons/ http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/09/06/the-folksy-clintons/#comments Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:54:29 +0000 Election_Geek http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/09/06/the-folksy-clintons/ I don’t know what has gotten into Bill & Hillary Clinton but yesterday I had an e-mail from her saying ‘Let’s Do Lunch’ and today I have one from him saying ‘Mind if I drop in?’. In the opening line Bill’s message says “I hear you might be having lunch with Hillary — do you mind if I drop in? “.

I am a cynical person and so I see that and want to run away from those e-mails as fast as possible, but maybe they work. Anyone have thoughts? If you have an e-mail from a former president pretending like he is going to have lunch with you and every three or four paragraphs it says CLICK HERE TO CONTRIBUTE, would that make your heart melt?

I think I would rather have something in my inbox that would make me want to contribute to them and had immediacy to it. Like “Social Security Won’t Be in Danger with President Hillary Clinton”. She gave a speech most people probably did not hear the other day where she said she would pay full benefits and not raise the age-limit for SS. It would be a good way of tying her message, a topical and voter driven issue and an action “if you want to elect someone who will secure full benefits for you and your family, contribute” all in one.

From Bill’s all I know is Clinton is smart and wonderful and if I make a contribution I might win a chance to have a lunch with them. I don’t even get dinner! Just lunch and probably with eighteen staffers in the room. I might be willing to spend a dollar on a lottery ticket to win $10,000,000 even though I know the odds. Tossing in $50 for no real odds of winning a fruit salad and sandwich lunch with the Clinton’s, probably not.

If I can raise $2,300 I can just go pay to have dinner with them and Warren Buffet and a bunch of other cool rich people and it isn’t a content.

Again I am sorry, I am cynical, this might be the greatest idea ever. For me though, not so much.

]]> http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/09/06/the-folksy-clintons/feed/ 0 http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/09/05/fec-wont-regulate-political-bloggingweb/ http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/09/05/fec-wont-regulate-political-bloggingweb/#comments Thu, 06 Sep 2007 03:07:33 +0000 Election_Geek http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/09/05/fec-wont-regulate-political-bloggingweb/ You can read the official Federal Election Commission (FEC) letter here or check out a Associated Press article summarizing the decision here, also quoted below:

DailyKos, an influential political Web site that serves as a virtual bulletin board for liberals, qualifies as a media entity exempt from federal campaign finance regulations, the Federal Election Commission said Tuesday.

The FEC said the Web site, operated by blogger Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, cannot be regulated as a political committee and can freely post blog entries that support candidates.

Conservative blogger John C.A. Bambenek had argued in a complaint last month that the site should comply with campaign finance laws because such entries amounted to “a gift of free advertising and candidate media services.’

So what does this mean? Good things for people like me ultimately. It is yet another step in the direction of regulators, opinion makers and the government looking at bloggers as real ‘media’ and guaranteeing us similar protections. It also ensures we can continue to provide editorial content in a free and relatively unrestricted environment.

From the decision:

In Matter Under Review (MUR) 5928, the Commission determined that Kos Media, L.L.C., which operates the website DailyKos, did not violate the Federal Election Campaign Act. The Commission rejected allegations that the site should be regulated as a political committee because it charges a fee to place advertising on its website and it provides “a gift of free advertising and candidate media services” by posting blog entries that support candidates. The Commission determined that the website falls squarely within the media exemption and is therefore not subject to federal regulation under the Act.


This is also a decision that will help to encourage online participation and the creation of online forums. It also means we can continue to build up online advocacy outlets that fundraise and fight for political agenda’s. That is good because it helps online activists counter the vast amounts of money/influence gained by corporations, unions and other groups, hopefully bringing new voices to the table both liberal and conservative.

There was also a second case involved, summary from the aforementioned Associated Press article:

The commission also rejected a complaint by Rep. Mary Bono, R-Calif., alleging that her 2006 Democratic opponent, David Roth, coordinated efforts with a blogger to advocate her defeat in the November 2006 general election. Bono won.

The FEC said the blogger, Michael L. Grace, acted in the capacity of a volunteer and his blogging efforts did not constitute an “in-kind service” subject to financial disclosure rules.

Is it all good? No, probably not.

The immediate thing that jumps out at me is the great potential for abuse. I think specifically of the “Swift Boat Veterans” in the 2004 campaign. There is nothing to stop someone from going online, creating a site advocating the complete destruction of a candidate, encouraging people to spread misleading or false information that walks a fine line of libel or slander all while raising a very large amount of money to bring that agenda to a much larger audience.

Ultimately there seemed to be little legal reasoning that could justify going the other way on this and we’ve been living with this unrestricted environment for awhile now. So this is by no means a titanic shift, it is just a reaffirmation of the status quo. However as more people seek out political information online and more people create these little niches, the limits of good taste and fairness will be tested. Just something to keep in mind.

]]> http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/09/05/fec-wont-regulate-political-bloggingweb/feed/ 0 http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/09/05/my-inbox-is-a-little-fuller-today/ http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/09/05/my-inbox-is-a-little-fuller-today/#comments Thu, 06 Sep 2007 00:00:28 +0000 Election_Geek http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/09/05/my-inbox-is-a-little-fuller-today/ A good sign that things are starting to heat up in the presidential race. Honestly I think most of the campaigns, up until now, have been doing a fairly decent job with keeping e-mails sparse but noticeable. I most often get messages from John McCain and they are usually pretty succinct and to the point (give us money, we are not in shambles, give us money).

I am using e-mail for a much different purpose than most of those who are probably subscribed. I skim the various fundraising messages to see if anything is new, it usually isn’t, then I delete. I rarely follow the links inside because I’ve already heard of whatever topic they are jumping on and I am not interested in giving money. So I am not the best judge of their effect.

With that said I have heard they are a good way to drive traffic to specific places and as action alerts for things happening in community sites I have to believe they are effective. I just personally see them as more junk in my inbox and now that we are getting close to the primaries I am sure I will be seeing plenty!

]]> http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/09/05/my-inbox-is-a-little-fuller-today/feed/ 0 http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/09/03/giulianis-web-site-gets-labor-day-off/ http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/09/03/giulianis-web-site-gets-labor-day-off/#comments Mon, 03 Sep 2007 14:57:48 +0000 Election_Geek http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/09/03/giulianis-web-site-gets-labor-day-off/ A story from the Washington Post and seen when visiting the site:

The campaign took the site down over the week, said spokeswoman Maria Comella. The new site will launch Tuesday morning with some new features, campaign officials said.

It is not at all unusual for popular Web sites to go dark for a few hours for maintenance. But in a primary race that is being fought as much online as offline — where voters and potential donors are surfing the net 24/7 — it’s rather curious to shut down a site for more than a day.

Not to be a jerk about it but one could make the argument that there wasn’t much to take down in the first place. They could have easily just put up an index.html file that says “Rudy Giuliani, Please Give Money” and it would have amounted to Giuliani’s Web presence thus far.

I’ve had a hard time figuring out just what the people at JoinRudy08.com do all day long anyway. I run ElectionGeek on what amounts to $20 a year and I have more information about Rudy Giuliani stored up in this place then was ever gathered at JoinRudy08.com. Including a rather glib assessment of his handshaking. Beat that!

Giuliani has basically spent a ton of money thus far, if I am reading the expenditures right it was over a half million dollars in “Web SVC” this quarter for what amounted to a template with a couple pictures and paragraphs thrown in with an online money transaction system.

I could not even begin to tell you the kind of Web site I could bring you for half a million dollars a quarter. Certainly I could do better than loading up a pre-built CMS onto a server, opening a merchant account and taking labor day off.

]]> http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/09/03/giulianis-web-site-gets-labor-day-off/feed/ 0 http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/08/24/follow-up-to-candidate-site-logins/ http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/08/24/follow-up-to-candidate-site-logins/#comments Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:45:55 +0000 Election_Geek http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/08/24/follow-up-to-candidate-site-logins/ As a follow-up to a previous post I wrote about logging into democratic candidate sites and logging into republican candidate sites Luigi Montanez from Leftmost Bitwrote me the following:

While I agree with you that all the candidate sites should have a login link
on the frontpage, it’s not as disastrous as it may seem. The reason they
haven’t really bothered is because the frontpage is never a driver to the
actions that require an account (event RSVPs, group joining, blog post
writing). The fact of the matter is that call to action emails are still the
main mode of getting activists to their site, and when they send those
emails they link to a specialized landing page that’s much more
user-friendly than stumbling onto the front page will ever be.

I don’t disagree that the most likely point of entry for those who actively use the accounts is through the action alert e-mails or through their community spaces. With that said I don’t think candidates should ignore the main page. Having a domain name that is easy to remember like barackobama or hillaryclinton.com is valuable because it is easy to remember. If I am on a friends computer or traveling or at the library etc. I should be able to sit down, type in the candidate name and not have to navigate around for what I need.

With that said Luigi highlighted a WONDERFUL point and I wanted to share.

]]> http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/08/24/follow-up-to-candidate-site-logins/feed/ 0 http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/08/23/candidates-blogs-glorified-public-relations/ http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/08/23/candidates-blogs-glorified-public-relations/#comments Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:49:25 +0000 Election_Geek http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/08/23/candidates-blogs-glorified-public-relations/ This post also appears on the wonderful site techPresident, much thanks to Joshua Levy

Did you read the blog post on the candidate Web site where the blogger gushed over the candidate and outlined the talking points of the campaign? So did I, over and over and over again. I have to be honest, I follow a lot of blogs but I almost never read the blog sections of the candidate’s sites. I cannot imagine most of you do either.

Do you want to get your a political public relations degree? Just look to online universities! With the prevalence of online classes, getting your online MBA or Bachelor degree is easier than ever.

At the very start of this campaign I really railed against the idea of hiring external bloggers. I get the idea. Speechwriters could write for the candidate blogs just as they write for the stump but I understand we are Web 2.0 and that wouldn’t be good enough. We want something personal! So instead of reading a speechwriter veiled as a candidate we are treated to the writing of interns, guest posters & full-time bloggers who try to tell us the candidates story through their story, which is immensely uninteresting and distancing and just sounds like rampant cheerleading.

When I look at the candidate’s blogs I don’t see speechwriting. Instead I see public relations. The average candidate blog post is the following:

I {saw, witnessed, was with} CANDIDATE in {Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina} and it was an {amazing, awe-inspiring, wonderful} time. My {pictures, videos, text messages} are here.

I was particularly struck when CANDIDATE discussed {health care, tort reform, flat tax, abortion, guns, labor unions, lobbying} and made an amazing point. There was a {man, woman} there with an amazingly personal story and I will always remember them. I am so grateful that I am part of this campaign and hope that when CANDIDATE wins and becomes President in 2009 they will follow-up on this issue.

The problem with these blogs isn’t entirely the fault of the bloggers but the premise, which is you take a bunch of people and have them write positively about a campaign. There is no excitement there, no room to grow, no running dialogue other than, candidate is good, candidate is good, candidate is good, vote.

Don’t get me wrong I want to see bloggers get work. I also would LOVE an inside track into the race. I would love to get a sense of what it sounds like and feels like on the ‘inside’. I would love reality TV in a blog, not canned thoughts and comment like we have now.

Frankly I also don’t care what a staffer for the Obama or Clinton campaign’s policy views are. I imagine they believe what the candidate believes, which is why they are with the campaign. I am not voting for the blogger. Same goes for the guest-posts of people talking about why they are voting for the candidate. It isn’t interesting.

There is only one blog I regularly look at, Fred Thompson’s. Now for all I know that is written by a team of speechwriters or bloggers. It says it comes from Fred Thompson’s own hands though, reads like it does and because of that he is 100% accountable for what is written on the page. If he writes a blog post entitled ‘Fifty-Two Reasons We Should Nuke the Moon & Hawaii’, he cannot just pass it off as misinterpreted or some other persons idea.

Blogging to me is an intensely personal thing. It is a writer using a medium to connect with people, to share thoughts, facts, opinions, and in some ways a stream of consciousness which points to music, art, literature, moving pictures and sounds that the author comes in contact with in their daily lives. Bloggers are reporters and are also personalities we connect with, grow with, get to know. Blogs are an awesome tool for a candidate to reach out to people but from what I have seen few if any are really utilizing them.

]]> http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/08/23/candidates-blogs-glorified-public-relations/feed/ 4 http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/08/22/sign-up-sign-in-sign-out-republican-web-sites/ http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/08/22/sign-up-sign-in-sign-out-republican-web-sites/#comments Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:18:29 +0000 Election_Geek http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/08/22/sign-up-sign-in-sign-out-republican-web-sites/ Yesterday I noted how logging into Democratic Web sites is a chore, today I follow-up with the Republican sites. If you want a summary, its just as bad.

WINNER for both parties is Fred Thompson who not only provides a link at the top to sign-up for an account BUT ALSO MAGICALLY SIGN-IN. Wow, what a concept and he isn’t even a candidate yet.

John McCain will let you sign-up but not sign in on the main page. To login with John McCain you have to go to “McCain Space” where you cannot login immediately you have to click another link to find the form.

Mitt Romney lets you sign up to join the team but it isn’t clear this leads to any more interaction that needs a login. I can post a comment to the Mitt Blog without logging into an account. Same with Sam Brownback. I can join “Team Brownback” but other than getting some e-mails there appears to be no account creation or login.

Rudy Giuliani, Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul & Mike Huckabee don’t seem to have any kind of social networking/long-term account system in place to login to either making most of these Republican sites pretty basic. Go, look, contribute leave.

So four stars to Fred Thompson, zero stars for just about every other candidate Republican or Democrat.

Now as I said yesterday why is account creation important? I noted because it lets you track your visitors, give them access to information tailored to them and it helps the campaign keep in contact. What would it also do? Republicans, please note this, it makes it easier for people to contribute. Once a person is logged in they could contribute with pretty much two or three clicks and little typing making them more likely to do it several times and in the heat of the moment when they are all fired up from seeing you speak or reading something on your site.

Give them twenty steps instead of two or three and you might lose them. So my point is, start getting sign-ups and when you do actually give them the ability to sign-in.

]]> http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/08/22/sign-up-sign-in-sign-out-republican-web-sites/feed/ 3 http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/08/21/sign-up-sign-in-sign-out-democratic-web-sites/ http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/08/21/sign-up-sign-in-sign-out-democratic-web-sites/#comments Wed, 22 Aug 2007 03:11:38 +0000 Election_Geek http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/08/21/sign-up-sign-in-sign-out-democratic-web-sites/ I signed up for accounts with most of the campaign Web sites several months ago and honestly haven’t been back since. Then yesterday I thought about seeing what I could do with some of the accounts and so I began visiting the sites. I was struck by something, on most of the campaign sites I could ’sign-up’ for an account but not ’sign-in’ on the main page.

Usually when you go to a social networking or just regular old Web site with an account system you are greeted with a “welcome so and so” message which lets you know you are logged in. If you aren’t logged in you can either ’sign-up’ for a new account or ’sign-in’. Not so on most candidates sites where if you aren’t logged in it takes some time to figure out how to get there.


On all of the Democratic candidate sites an immediate “login” link or form boxes are not available on the main pages. Now on some sites you have to click the sign-up button in order to login. I don’t know why but you do with certain content management systems. So I figured I would try. It only worked for Richardson where once you hit signup you are then taken to a new page where you can either get an account or login if you have an account. No other Democratic candidate has this on their main page.

For Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Biden you must enter an e-mail address and zip code and get a new account. For Biden’s page you can click on the sign-up link without entering anything and you are presented with a ‘Thank You’ screen instead of an error message saying you didn’t fill out the fields correctly. Somebody needs to fix the script!

With Kucinich I can contribute or receive a newsletter with not much more for interaction, same for Mike Gravel. Not surprising considering their fundraising.

If you want a link that says “login” for Clinton you need to hit the drop-down menu under ‘Take Action’. One doesn’t exist for Barack Obama but you can hit ‘Get Involved’ and then hit ‘My.Barack.Obama.com” to login. Nothing I can see takes you from the main page to a login screen on Edwards or the other candidates sites.

I just found it funny as this is one of the most basic things that appear on just about any commerce or social networking site. The idea if you want people logged in so you can see what they are doing, present them with targeted information and keep better track of them to ensure they come back.

]]> http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/08/21/sign-up-sign-in-sign-out-democratic-web-sites/feed/ 2 http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/08/21/the-wiki-wars/ http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/08/21/the-wiki-wars/#comments Tue, 21 Aug 2007 22:06:49 +0000 Election_Geek http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/08/21/the-wiki-wars/ Kirsten Anderson writes about wikipedia’s role in the 2008 election:

Every day on Wikipedia, the battle for the 2008 election is fought across the candidates’ pages through a steady flow of additions, deletions, edits, and reverts. A study of three days of changes on the candidates’ pages may not be a predictor of popularity or electability, but it certainly is fascinating in its own right.

In terms of activity, on August 17 the winner in sheer volume of changes in a single day was Mitt Romney, whose main biographical page logged a wearying twenty-eight edits. Internet darling Ron Paul came in second with eighteen changes, while others registered few or no edits.

Many of the changes on any given day in Wikipedia are fairly mundane: typo fixing, formatting adjustments, shifts of information from one section of a page to another. Others are repairs of vandalism, the wildly outrageous statements that are the equivalent of scrawls across a campaign poster and are usually quickly deleted. (It’s a safe bet that “Ron Paul is the new spokesman for Fierce Melon Gatorade” is going to be noticed and taken out pretty quickly.)

]]> http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/08/21/the-wiki-wars/feed/ 0 http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/08/06/bringing-people-online-at-yearlykos/ http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/08/06/bringing-people-online-at-yearlykos/#comments Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:26:31 +0000 Election_Geek http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/08/06/bringing-people-online-at-yearlykos/ A story in the Times Caucus Blog about Nancy Robinson who is a gun-control advocate from Boston and came to the blogging convention YearlyKos seeking support for her issue and Andrew Rasiej who co-founded TechPresident. Robinson found little support from the blogosphere and Rasiej gave her (and the paper) an understanding of why and how to resolve it.

The basic idea? Bloggers are trying to unite the party, avoid the divisiveness over an issue like gun-control and many are gun-owners themselves. Rasiej’s suggestion, start blogging yourself and tie the site into a database of gun-deaths around the country to put a personal face to the issue. Read the article for a recap of the conversation and some thoughts about blogging and lobbying in general.

]]> http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/08/06/bringing-people-online-at-yearlykos/feed/ 0 http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/31/techpresidents-staffwiki/ http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/31/techpresidents-staffwiki/#comments Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:44:45 +0000 Election_Geek http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/31/techpresidents-staffwiki/ techPresident has created a wiki devoted to information about staff members of the ‘08 campaign. I for one love the idea and have already contributed to it. (I will contribute more throughout).

Go check it out and contribute!

]]> http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/31/techpresidents-staffwiki/feed/ 0 http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/30/should-we-youtube-again/ http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/30/should-we-youtube-again/#comments Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:41:44 +0000 Election_Geek http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/30/should-we-youtube-again/ Kathleen Parker writing in the IndyStar says no:

YouTube invites silliness, which is part of its appeal, but inviting so-called “ordinary Americans” to film themselves posing questions to presidential candidates does not advance democracy, no matter how much hoopla we manufacture.

What anybody can do, anybody can do. Anyone can make a goofy video and ask a goofy question, but the man or woman intending to lead the free world should resist dignifying the charade.

Joe Biden came close to showing his disdain for this insult to American intelligence, such as it is, when a Michigan fellow asked whether he and his Second Amendment buddies could be sure their “babies” would be safe. He then cradled his own baby, a military-grade automatic weapon.

Biden said he wasn’t sure the fellow was “mentally qualified to own that gun.”
Even if the candidates were irritated by this faux show of democratic connectivity, they had no choice but to participate. If you refuse to play with the YouTubies, you risk being viewed as elitist and out of touch with Tha Peepul.

I haven’t been a big supporter of the YouTube style debate and after seeing it I believe most of my concerns were justified and on target. At the end of the day I would much rather see them ask questions to the public on YouTube etc. for every debate and then toss a few in.

At the end of the day the debates themselves are flawed this early on (and later too) because the entire format is flawed. Too many people, too little time for answers, too long as a whole and little if anything in substance with the questions, the answers etc.

The user submitted questions with people dressing up in characters, singing songs, wasting time doesn’t help it only adds to those flaws.

]]> http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/30/should-we-youtube-again/feed/ 0 http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/27/cbs-interviews-techpresident-founder-andrew-rasiej/ http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/27/cbs-interviews-techpresident-founder-andrew-rasiej/#comments Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:35:59 +0000 Election_Geek http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/27/cbs-interviews-techpresident-founder-andrew-rasiej/ Check it out at CBS.
]]> http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/27/cbs-interviews-techpresident-founder-andrew-rasiej/feed/ 0 http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/27/a-republican-debate-without-republicans/ http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/27/a-republican-debate-without-republicans/#comments Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:25:21 +0000 Election_Geek http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/27/a-republican-debate-without-republicans/ The buzz over the CNN/YouTube debate has quickly moved onto the Republican portion but as many online have found out, only Ron Paul & John McCain have signed up. So what about the rest of the candidates?

Marc Ambinder is reporting that Giuliani will most likely skip the debate entirely.

Meanwhile the New Hampshire Union Leader reports the following on Mitt Romney:

Republican Mitt Romney isn’t sure yet whether he’ll participate in the CNN/YouTube.com Republican debate in September, but he’s no fan of the format.

“I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman,” he said in an interview yesterday.

techPresident is keeping an eye on he issue.

]]> http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/27/a-republican-debate-without-republicans/feed/ 0 http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/24/tech-presidents-debate-wrap-up/ http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/24/tech-presidents-debate-wrap-up/#comments Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:23:16 +0000 Election_Geek http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/24/tech-presidents-debate-wrap-up/

This is their first foray into contributing Web video through their site so make sure to stop by TechPresident and let them know what you thought.

]]> http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/24/tech-presidents-debate-wrap-up/feed/ 0 http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/24/lowering-the-debate-for-ratings/ http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/24/lowering-the-debate-for-ratings/#comments Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:06:24 +0000 Election_Geek http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/24/lowering-the-debate-for-ratings/ Well the YouTube revolution has made it into the Main Stream Media as Chris Matthews has on Obama Girl, Hot4Hill & Giuliani Girl. Democracy will never be the same!

Seriously I am watching this right now and I have to ask, what is going on in this country? If this is what it takes to get young people to vote, is it worth it? This is really embarrassing, I feel embarrassed for Chris Matthews.

]]> http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/24/lowering-the-debate-for-ratings/feed/ 0 http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/22/on-the-eve-of-the-first-youtube-debate/ http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/22/on-the-eve-of-the-first-youtube-debate/#comments Sun, 22 Jul 2007 15:42:57 +0000 Election_Geek http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/22/on-the-eve-of-the-first-youtube-debate/ So tomorrow night at 7:00 POLITICS AS WE KNOW IT WILL BE REVOLUTIONIZED. Seriously politicians will answer the questions they have always ignored, will stop reading from speeches and get to the heart and soul of the nation’s deepest thoughts and feelings and the Internet will take over politics and solve all the worlds problems. Why? Because a bunch of people sitting in their living rooms will ask candidates questions through a Web cam which they submitted months before and have already been screened by the campaigns press offices. Watch out MSM (that is Main Stream Media for you non-tech-Web-2.0 people) because this debate will be brought to you by, well, CNN, which is part of the MSM. Wait what?

OK this thing won’t revolutionize politics, it probably won’t even be interesting television, but it has given all the Web sites and CNN itself endless chatter and chances to promote so it is good. Here is what I think you can expect from the debate(s) and why.


First up, more of the same.
What possesses people to believe that having questions submitted online will suddenly change the debate, reframe the issues or get candidates to leave their pre-prepared remarks is beyond me. I don’t understand it, I don’t accept it, I believe tomorrow night and every night for the remainder of the election my position will be vindicated. Why?

Because I have seen a good chunk of the vides submitted and they are a mix of the exact same questions being asked of these candidates already with a pinch of crazy and a side of vapid nonsense and self promotion.

Second up, lots of promotion.
For the next twenty-four hours CNN is going to push this debate like its the holy grail. Show after show will tease it, prognosticator after prognosticator will tell us how it is “revolutionizing politics” and “bloggers” will be interviewed on the network so that they can get on their blogs and shout “watch CNN, watch CNN”. Then the debate will start and everyone will be disappointed because it is the same group of people we’ve seen before will answer the questions the same way they did before.

Seriously during the last two debates CNN couldn’t get the microphones working. We’ve had lightning rods almost as long as we’ve had this country and yet lightning continually ruined the show. How in the world are they going to manage to revolutionize politics through the Internet when the network can barely keep the lights on?

Third, if you still doubt politicians won’t change.
These YouTube videos were submitted over the last few months. Even if they throw in a curveball or two all of these campaigns have been preparing canned answers for these questions for ages. Meanwhile do you really think CNN is going to throw a stripper on asking something crazy out of left field? No. The most challenging question will be about Darfur or something and then things will move back into normal territory.

Fourth, the endless ‘thank you’s’.
Be prepared to hear Hillary & Obama & Dodd & the rest endlessly ‘thank’ the submitters for their questions and then comment on how ‘great it is to have a forum like this where honest people can submit blah blah blah’.

Fifth, have you seen the Internet?
Most average Americans barely vote. Politics occupies such a small amount of their brain space it barely registers. The Internet is a wonderful representation of just how little people are concerned with politics or substance.

Right now the most important political videos on YouTube involve scantily clad women, Rudy Giuliani in a dress & John Edwards combing his hair. Those are the political messages that have reached up from the grassroots and made it into the publics consciousness.

Finally my tips for reaching the real Internet and the American people.
Put Jessica Alba or Paris Hilton in the debate. Guaranteed largest viewer-ship ever for CNN & if you add a cat and a dog fighting on stage next to them you will reach the entire Internet audience.

Sorry to be a cynic but come Tuesday we will see who is right.

]]> http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/22/on-the-eve-of-the-first-youtube-debate/feed/ 0 http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/21/cnet-politicians-have-learned-to-fear-revere-youtube/ http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/21/cnet-politicians-have-learned-to-fear-revere-youtube/#comments Sat, 21 Jul 2007 14:16:43 +0000 Election_Geek http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/21/cnet-politicians-have-learned-to-fear-revere-youtube/ From CNET:

In 2004, YouTube didn’t exist. Three years later, politicians have learned to fear and revere the video-sharing Web site that has become a vital part of the campaign for the 2008 U.S. presidential election.

]]> http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/07/21/cnet-politicians-have-learned-to-fear-revere-youtube/feed/ 0