If Campaigns are conversations?

“Tech-savvy politicos have formed a Silicon Valley-based political action committee supporting Barack Obama. A major local fundraiser is being planned for next month for the Illinois senator, who posted an Internet video announcing an exploratory committee for a 2008 presidential run. Bay Area politicians say the media-genic, mixed-race Obama is a natural for California and could go far in the state.”

Looks like the meme is out – you techies are all going to fall in line for Obama.

Robert: and so far that PAC has only raised something like $30,000. My new Saturn cost as much. Oh, and Edwards says he won’t accept money from any PAC. So there.

Rick: if you watch the videos you’ll see that he met with dozens of bloggers. I was far from the only videoblogger there too. So, as much as I’d like all the credit, I can’t accept it. The Edwards campaign does.

While I admire the fact that John Edwards is reaching out to new media/social media/bloggers, I am not going to cast a vote for any the candidates mentioned just because they decided to converse with “me” via a web medium.

In France Segolène Royal use Second Life:

http://www.dariosalvelli.com/2007/01/virtual-politique

Robert – “Oh, and Edwards says he won’t accept money from any PAC. So there.”

You might want to do a little research on “Emily’s List” and see if that changes your mind.

Regardless, saying “no pac money” is only possible because he’s willing to dump millions ($6million in the last campaign) of his own money into his campaign. Now, a reasonable person has to wonder why on earth these folks would put $6,000,000 of their own money into this. They would have to be either 1) completely power hungry, 2) believe they will get back more $ than they put into it, or 3) a combination of the above. Its pure folly to think its “to make a better world”.

Robert – “Oh, and Edwards says he won’t accept money from any PAC. So there.”

You might want to do a little research on “Emily’s List” and see if that changes your mind.

Regardless, saying “no pac money” is only possible because he’s willing to dump millions ($6million in the last campaign) of his own money into his campaign. Now, a reasonable person has to wonder why on earth these folks would put $6,000,000 of their own money into this. They would have to be either 1) completely power hungry, 2) believe they will get back more $ than they put into it, or 3) a combination of the above. Its pure folly to think its “to make a better world”.

I’m guessing the poster is a male. Emily’s List seeks to endorse women candidates. Mrs. Clinton has already gotten their endorsement for this reason alone.

Robert:
Sorry, according to that story, you support Obama, all you techies. Looks like you have no choice.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/16496756.htm

Robert,

How do you explain them printing off blog posts instead of joining the conversation.

How do you explain none of them not using a last name with an individual email? There is a lack of engagement necessary for me to give the credit you’re giving and that, to me at least, is engaging with real blog posts, not throwing “blog parties”.

David D: some of us are more comfortable with aliases. It’s good to read you are transparent, but at the same time, you are trying to get revenues for your company, whereas some of us just blog.

Obama is a sick and twisted freak who loves killing babies. Ever seen a photo of a partial birth abortion? It’s enough to make a grown man cry. Obama is a huge supporter of infanticide. Oh yeah, Bill Clinton vetoed banning this, didn’t he? Where does Hillary stand, since she never actually answers any questions?

I haven’t seen a single candidate thus far, that I would even consider voting for. Perhaps Newt? Michael Reagan? That would be the only two conservatives who might actually plan to run. Libs suck dude.

Their Campaign Political Strategists basically decides what routes they should take?

The more likely a candidate is to win – the more traditional and safer the strategies.

It appears that the ‘somewhat less likely to win’ candidates must employ creative options to attract New voters, disenchanted voters or more open-minded voters.

They also are somewhat less financed in the beginning – and are less likely to be profiled heavily in the powerful tradional media (unless something tragic happens).

security is right. Osama and Billary really have no pressing need to “have a conversation”. There message is getting out just fine with the MSM picking up on it. Yea, both of them used their web sites to announce “exploratory campaigns”, but that was no different than putting out a press release. Until these guys see the traditional avenues failing them in polling well and getting traction, they aren’t going to lose too much sleep over not “having a conversation”. Edwards is getting overshadowed and drowned out by Osama and Billary so, he has to try something different to stay noticed.

I’m a little tired of the pro-Edwards-all-the-time bias of this blog too. Besides, whatever happened to weighing a candidate based on his/her stand on the issues, rather than judging his/her mode of delivery and communication? Will you also laud just as strongly someone at the other end of the political spectrum who embraces the latest & greatest social media tools?

LayZ: Edwards is leading in Iowa polls.

PW: this isn’t a blog where it’s appropriate to talk about issues. It IS an appropriate place to talk about candidate’s use of social media, since I’m an authority on that. And, yes, I will talk about what I learn about Republican candidates, but so far none of them have invited me onto their campaigns.

If you want to talk about issues, I’d recommend RedState.com for right-wing issues and DailyKos or MyDD for left wing issues.

True, true, Scoble. One thing is for sure I think. Since the Internet is here to stay, and as such is a huge resource of information and media, using it as a means of spreading information (or propaganda, depending on how you view it), is only a natural occurrence. Anyway, it is interesting to ponder.

blockquote>I will talk about what I learn about Republican candidates, but so far none of them have invited me onto their campaigns.
I wouldn’t hold your breath dude. Just kidding. As if you care. Come on Scoble, we know you’re a big lib. Whatever floats your boat, I guess. It’s a free country (so far).

Brent: I’ve been a Republican more years in my life than I’ve been a Democrat. My picture of Ronald Reagan is still hanging in Silicon Valley’s Republican Party Headquarters. So, you can never be too sure of which way I’ll go. Heheh.

I was just kidding around anyway. I don’t even know you, personally. But if you remember any of my previous posts here, I kind of like to stir things up.

To be honest with you, out of all of the Democrats running, I think Edwards is the best choice, although I probably won’t vote for him. He does seems the least extreme to the left, however. Obama is just way out there. I’m in Illinois, and I know this guy’s record. He’s pretty much a socialist. Hillary is not far behind.

I love Reagan, and I hope that his son Michael would run in the future. He is a good man, just like his dad. Too bad his other son Ron, is a complete wacko.

Cheers to you though Scoble. I think this is one of your best posts in a while.

Is there any Republican that you would consider voting for these days? I’d consider voting for a Democrat such as Joe Lieberman. Just curious where you stand, for the sake of interest.

To be clear, I’m not a Democrat nor a Republican. I’m an independent, and have never voted in a primary. But I am a conservative (proudly).

I’d probably have to consider myself a Libertarian on many issues, EXCEPT abortion. I feel that it is adamantly wrong and immoral to kill an innocent child, just because you don’t want to face the responsibility of being an adult who practices in sex outside of marriage.

Good day.

Brent: I’m traditionally an economic conservative and a social liberal. I don’t know enough about the Republicans, but of what I’ve seen so far I’d probably go with McCain or Giuliani.

Robert,

Do you actually believe what you write? Do you actually read your comments? If so, you’ll note that I commented on your previous post about Edwards being so netroots friendly, and countered by letting you know that Governor Bill Richardson spent all last year meeting with bloggers, not on behalf of his personal campaign, but as the chair of the Democratic Governors Association. Go read Olympia Time and you’ll see my how my friend Emmett countered your post. And unlike him, I won’t link to you. You should stick with tech and stay out of politics until you know what you’re talking about.

Ken: cool. Did Bill Richardson visit any blogger conference of note? Edwards did. Did Bill Richardson announce his presidency on YouTube with Rocketboom running camera? Edwards did. Did Bill Richardson’s wife meet with bloggers at a blogging conference? Edwards wife did. Did Richardson invite several bloggers to fly with him on his plane? Edwards did. Has Richardson done a live chat on Daily Kos? Edwards has. Does Richardson get mentioned in any of the polls as being in the top three Democratic nominees? Edwards does.

what I’ve seen so far I’d probably go with McCain or Giuliani.

No Scoble, I meant conservatives, not Republicans. There is a difference you know.

I like Guliani, but I do not like that he is pro-choice. However, I would still vote for him, as I think he is most likely to be the nominee. McCain seems too phony. Anybody but Clinton or Obama (Hussein) sounds decent to me. Well…that’s a stretch. Btw, was I right about Obama or what? Sorhos (the world’s richest communist)is now a leading sponsor for his campaign. Yikes!

@47

Richardson was at YearlyKos, where he spoke on an energy panel and a hosted breakfast for bloggers. Not sure if that is a bloggers conference “of note” though.

But, your reference as Richardson as not being a “top three” candidate runs counter of your argument for netroots engagement. If someone is polling well right now, its because they have name recognition, that everyone has heard of them because they’re:

a) on Oprah like all the time
b) a former first lady
c) a former, unsuccessful VP candidate

Implying that Richardson doesn’t matter because he isn’t one of those three is shallow. Its not like we haven’t seen an extremely popular (Richardson was reelected with 69 percent) governor from outside the mainstream become President.

Or the netroots powered front runner.

Robert @ 47:

What Emmett at 49 said.

And yes, Richardson announced on YouTube. Go to Washington for Richardson and you can watch the video.

Yes, he’s also done live chats on Daily Kos.

And yes, I’m sure we’ll see more of Barbara Richardson now that he’s running for President.

Bill Richardson is doing more outreach than you give him credit for.

@41 “LayZ: Edwards is leading in Iowa polls.”

You keep bringing that up like it means something. It doesn’t. Need I continue to remind you of Howard Dean? He was leading going into the Iowa caucus in 2004. Running neck and neck of Gephardt of all people. Jesus,man! Read a history book, once! The Iowa caucus is a year away. And he’s not that far ahead from two candidates THAT HAVEN”T OFFICIALLY DECLARED. Thus proving my point.