Explain to me this: Obama’s pastor says some stupid shit, the Republicans attach Obama for it; Democrats say, rightfully so, that the pastor doesn’t represent Obama; Democrats dig up some stupid shit Sarah Palin’s pastor said and use it against here. Where is the logic in these arguments.
It’s similar to the Republicans attacking Obama for his lack of experience, and turning around and picking a VP that is just as green (if not even more so in my opinion). Granted much of this virollic argumentation is being done by those who support the respective candidates and not by the campaigns themselves, but can’t we agree that this sort of back and forth is anything but an honest and intellectual dialog?
What is equally frustrating are conversations that go like this: “Obama will raise your taxes!” Me: “Only if you are rich, really.” “Where did you hear that?!” “I read it on numerous reputable websites and magazines, not to mention I’ve actually heard Obama talk about what he wants to do with taxes.” “Well, you can’t believe everything you read.” WTF!?
Ok, so I’ve been out of the game for awhile, but this whole Sarah Palin thing has got me fired up and I’m ready to start writing. Until now, I wanted to try and keep this blog at least somewhat objective, but that format is changing. I spend my days immersed in Conservative-Republican bullshit, and I need a way to vent. Everyone knows most private political discussion can turned heated quickly if you don’t agree, and I like to avoid those. I like my friends who are conservatives, but I when I hear their false accusations and faux-rationals I want to punch them in the fucking face. So, this is now a blog to make sure that doesn’t happen.
Frankly, I get sick of politics. I get sick of watching the conventions. I get sick of the pseudo-journalism on the cable news networks. However, the reality is that I care about my country, and I care about it’s direction, so I am forced to pay attention.
Let me tell you a little about my political bend. In a nutshell, I am social progressive (liberal) and fiscally conservative. That is to say: I believe in human rights for everyone (including gays/lesbians); I don’t like pre-emptive war unless there is damn solid fucking evidence of an imminent attack; I think women should have the right to choose; I think government should stay as small as possible while still fullfilling its roll, protect the people (read national defense AND welfare), and not spend money it doesn’t have; I believe guns are for hunting only; and that nuclear could be a viable option in helping to solve the energy problem.
As you read this blog you will probably notice that I have a much more liberal bend than conservative, but I guess that’s the way it goes. I tend to identify more with the Democrats and get infuriated by the Republicans, but I still claim to be an Independent because there are an equal number of douchebags in each party.
Wes Clark tried to make a point on TV yesterday saying that John McCain’s military experience was null and void because he never commanded in a combat setting. That may be true, but that in no way disqualifies McCain’s myriad military credentials and the fact that he is an American hero, as Barack Obama said today.
As NBC scrambles to fill the unfillable chair of Tim Russert, Tom Brokaw will take the show at least through the election in November. There has been torrents of speculation on who will become the new moderator of Meet the Press. NBC has long term correspondents David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell seemingly waiting in the wings.
Gregory could be good. He’s confrontational, but perhaps too much so. He’s seems to let his emotions get the best of him, which is perhaps why he’s been filling in on the Today show more often as of late. He’s had a slew of incidents, including calling into Imus acting very odd (some think he was drunk). And, can you imagine Tim Russert dancing on the air?
Andrea Mitchell is old. She is a great journalist, but NBC would have to replace her in a few years. She could be a longer-term temp, however, while NBC grooms someone else for the position.
In my mind, Chuck Todd would be a great replacement for Russert. He is relatively unknown, but has been trained under Russert’s wing and has the same boyish excitement over politics that Russert had. I have yet to see a Chuck Todd interview, though. He is mostly used as an analyst and would take some time to get him up to speed on the other side of the interview. Todd is a young, fresh face at NBC and could mold Meet the Press into his own forum for years to come, as Russert did over his tenure. Todd is a political savant, and already has a youthful following that could add MTP viewers for generations to come.
Rumors about Barack Obama are still swirling around rural America. A local is interviewed:
“I’ll admit that I probably don’t follow all of the election news like maybe I should,” Peterman said. “I haven’t read his books or studied up more than a little bit. But it’s hard to ignore what you hear when everybody you know is saying it. These are good people, smart people, so can they really all be wrong?”
I recieved plenty of these rumor emails early in the campaign, and I can’t believe that they are still being passed around. Furthermore, people still apparently believe many of the falsities contained in these online rumors. For the record, Barack Obama is a Christian and a patriot. Not even his opponent argues that.
It does seem Obama has been altering his positions lately. Frankly, though, I hate the words “flip flopper.” Look, any rational person should change their position upon discovery of new facts. The question is, what constitutes pandering and what constitutes a rational evolution of one’s opinions? MSM and bloggers alike are quick to jump on any politician that changes positions, regardless of their reasons.
The fact is, positions can and should change, even over a short-term. This “flip flopper” nonsense needs to stop because the diatribe makes no meaningful point or contribution. I would further argue that “flip flopping” could be a good thing. Perhaps we would have been better off if President Bush “flip flopped” on the war in Iraq, or on his government spending habbits.
Just when you think politicians can’t get any dumber, John McCain opens his mouth, “And I stopped beating my wife just a couple of weeks ago.” Seriously, John, you are running for President, and every word you utter is scrutinized. Regardless of the context you don’t sing songs about bombing Iran, and you don’t joke about beating your wife.
Peggy Noonan writes that McCain lags far behind Barack Obama in media coverage. I think a lot of this has to do with what I mentioned yesterday. McCain has a very poor online presence. Obama has a well greased political machine online that can drum up media attention like white teeth in England. Looking at Wonkette’s Wonkosphere directory, John McCain has plenty of opportunity with all the conservative blogs out there.
The Republicans are poised to lose this fall in the 2008 General Election. The Grand Old Party is proving to be just that: old. The Republicans, in large measure, have put little stock in how effective the Internet can be as a medium for their candidates. Certainly, most candidates have web sites, but most of those suffer from poor design and usability when contrasted with their Democratic counterparts. If Republicans want to win, they must take notice and improve their position.
The Intarweb
To be successful in distributing your message on the Internet you must understand it fundamentally.
Most people equate the Internet with the World Wide Web. This is not accurate. The Web is merely a part of the Internet, and since the Web is the most visible element it is often used synonymously with Internet.
The Internet as a whole is a public global network. The Internet includes elements such as websites on the Web, email, and instant messaging. It also includes lesser-known elements like UseNet, File Transfer (FTP), and Internet Relay Chat (IRC). Each of these elements—or protocols as they are technically known—are exploitable in the political arena.
This means that, in addition to websites, candidates need to have active campaigns in email, instant messaging, and even SMS text messaging. Furthermore, candidates may also want to target IRC as a way to facilitate grass roots contact with more tech savvy constituents.
The Proof in the Pudding
The 2008 cycle has seen poor turnouts and difficulty fund raising for Republican candidates. In contrast, Dems have seen twice the turn out (in some states’ primaries) and dramatically higher fund raising. While this is due, in part, to the current political climate, it is also because the Dems have executed a trans-media campaign better than the Republicans. The Dems are more agile and better poised on the Internet, and it shows.
As of this writing Barack Obama has raised nearly $250 million by more than 1 million individual contributors. Hillary Clinton saw similar numbers. This dwarfs any Republican campaign, but Ron Paul has seen relatively outstanding fund raising numbers because of his efforts on the Internet. Obama’s campaign is extremely well organized and has the best presence on the Internet. From his website to his email list to his social-networking pages, the freshman senator is a viable candidate because of his Internet presence.
On Demographics
After the moral debauchery of the Clinton Whitehouse, Karl Rove knew America was looking for a values candidate. He tapped the value-based, evangelical wing of the Republican Party and won. The Dems are doing something similar this cycle, they are looking at the existing political climate and targeting accordingly.
Some would argue this tactic would not work for Republicans. Sure, the Internet is filled with young, liberal voters, but it is also filled older, conservatives as well. This is where the GOP gets it wrong. It’s 2008, virtually everyone in America uses the Internet: rich, poor, young, old, liberal, conservative. It should be no surprise that John McCain’s website receives only a fraction of Barack Obama’s traffic. There is a field that is ripe to be picked, but the Republicans don’t know how to harvest it.
The Bottom Line
The Internet is a fast and powerful way to collect information, raise money, and inform voters. There is a fine line between spamming your constituents and facilitating meaningful and effective communication. Many web professionals have experience with towing this line; many online political strategists do not.
Republicans have a poorly implemented online strategy. They pay more attention to television and direct mail. Building a candidacy online, as well as the traditional mediums, is pivotal to winning and raising the money necessary to win. Online strategies are extraordinarily cost effective and cannot be ignored if a candidate wants to win.
Leading republican “online political strategists” have online presences that are representative of their work: cheap and poorly usable. I see candidates and consultants websites that pay no attention to search engine optimization (SEO) let alone adhering to web standards. Their efforts are lackluster and amateur. They do not take the medium seriously, and they will pay for that this fall.
How to Win
Although Republican contenders are behind the curve, there is still time in this cycle to correct. While there may not be enough time in the presidential race, most congressional campaigns are only in their infancies. Each campaign needs a knowledgeable online liaison. For Republicans, this likely means someone new to the political arena. Most internal consultants for the Party are novices when it comes to social networks, web standards, and SEO—not to mention SMS and IRC efforts—to build grass roots support online. Find web consultancies that are experts in marketing online and that cater to businesses. Look at their results. Make sure they have outstanding design skills and care about web standards and usability. These things matter, big time.
This article is not about laying out the best way to execute an online strategy for a campaign, this article serves as a warning to Republicans. Luddite campaigns are behind the curve and it shows.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that child rapists could not be put to death. Barack Obama came out and said that he basically disagreed with the court, saying that child rape could be considered a capital offense. Today, the DC gun ban was overturned by the Court, and Obama came out and said he believed gun ownership was an “individual right” which is an interesting migration from what he has said in the past. The latest rulings and Obama’s subsequent comments may indicate he’s going strong for the center vote.
Update: Time has a similar take.
