techPresident - video - Comments

Barack just emailed me a link to Michelle's speech

stevegarfield — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:28:23 -0400

Barack just emailed me a link to Michelle's speech:

http://my.barackobama.com/michelle

The Google sponsored link still only goes to a preview.

--------- [ Web Sites ] ---------
Steve Garfield
http://stevegarfield.com

Have you found a high quality version?

stevegarfield — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 05:41:27 -0400

Here's a verson on CNN with a pre-roll commercial:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/08/26/michelle.obama.long...

--------- [ Web Sites ] ---------
Steve Garfield
http://stevegarfield.com

Great post, Patrick

Micah L. Sifry — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 22:44:57 -0400

I think you sum up the current state of play pretty well. As Andrew and I wrote for the Politico a week ago:

The presidential campaigns just aren’t giving their supporters, or the wider public, very much to do or talk about. Yes, most of the campaigns are embracing the bells and whistles of the social Web.

Every presidential candidate has a blog and a presence on the major social networking sites, such as MySpace and Facebook. Many of them have created platforms where their supporters can create their own mini-campaign on the candidate’s behalf, with tools for raising money, organizing events and writing their own blog posts.

But if you look for bottom-up dynamism on these sites — the kind that gave the Howard Dean campaign its energy in 2003 — you won’t find it. The official campaign blogs are written by the equivalent of digital press secretaries.

While the blog posts written by grass-roots supporters may show some spontaneity and genuine passion, all the campaigns — even Obama’s, which has the largest base of grass-roots supporters — keep those tightly under wraps.

None of the campaign websites devote consistent space on their home pages to independent efforts on the candidate’s behalf; every inch of their online real estate is devoted to pushing their message, as opposed to trusting others to spread that for them.

It’s obviously still early to draw final conclusions about the Net and the 2008 presidential campaign. But the way things are going right now, it looks as though the whole field — not just the Republicans — has retreated from the high-water mark of bold online politicking set by Dean last cycle.

They’re all playing it safe, using the new tools of the Web at a fraction of their real capacity.

As for what Tex says about the Ron Paul movement, I think he's got a point too. Whether you agree with Paul or not, it's clear that he's putting forward a set of ideas that stand apart from the Republican pack, and that are galvanizing an activist base. From that energy flows action and innovation (though most of what the Paul-ites are doing is making good use of the existing tools of the social web, like Meetup and YouTube and the social network hubs, as opposed to innovating). Maybe the evident lack of energy on and around the sites of the major candidates has more to do with their failure to ignite passionate supporters around a unifying message, than the degree of control the campaigns are exercising through their web-based efforts.

I have mixed thoughts on this.

Freedomfighter — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:07:03 -0400

I have mixed thoughts on this. I hope the bloggers here will chime on this posting. The fact is Dean was boosted as an activist movement and his website reflects that. Activists are more geared to promoting ideas or representing a group of people as opposed to candidate campaigns which focus more on donors and voters in specific time frame. Activists do not require a time frame. Candidate campaigns, however, focus on specific time frames and must target specific groups. The approach is automatically going to be different.

Patrick is right about the political use of the internet seems to have slipped but that is because things have not really geared up yet. See the following link to an animation from American Solutions which will have big event next week.

http://americansolutions.advomation.com/animation/

An example of a donor site is Club for Growth which has all the activity he desires in a website, but it really does not draw a lot of traffic.

http://www.clubforgrowth.org

Activists groups, such as the following, thrive on attention and issues and are not constrained by donors or candidates.

http://www.veteransformedicalmarijuana.org/

http://www.downsizedc.org/

http://www.mpp.org/

… then there is Rush Limbaugh who downplays the internet, but uses it quite well on his site below. He effectively uses the internet. You can find statistics on how many listeners he has but the big question is how many pay to listen to him over the internet?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/

Innovation

Tex MacRae — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:09:52 -0400

You're a smart guy, Patrick, but as long as you persist in misunderstanding the nature of internet innovation, we're just going to run right over you "web 2.0" strategists. You're looking up at some stodgy old suited fatcats and their corporate campaign staffs and wondering why they don't innovate? It's absurdly funny and a little pathetic.

People innovate when they see an unfulfilled need. Now, you, as a war supporting neocon, aren't going to like this - but the need that Dean fulfilled was for a candidate willing to speak out against the war. That's what drew people in swarms to Dean. He was the only one willing to even feebly represent that voiceless and ignored constituency which was vilified and marginalized in their own country. Of course, he was a fatally flawed vessel for their hopes and he imploded under the pressure.

Now, we have Ron Paul. Don't you wish someone would make a video like this about Rudy or Mitt?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFy--JHgYIw

You won't admit it, but you do. I've seen you guys try to coopt the Revolution language that RP supporters made their own. David All signs his emails "Revolution." You write lame posts about "The summer it started to happen" all the while looking up instead of out, where ideas galvanize real people to action. Innovation is the same whether it's done on the web to reclaim freedom or to invent a way to light a dark room. It's a response to an unfulfilled need. When enough people band together to advance their ideas, you have a "revolution." It has nothing to do with stupid Jumpcut websites millionaires graciously allow the peasants to use in their behalf, or pretty icons on a website. Look to Thomas Paine, pamphleteer for freedom or Paul Revere yelling from horseback.

Regardless of the communication medium - and that's what the web is, a means of communication - true revolutionaries have a real message. It's the message that matters, not the medium. When your candidates can deliver a real message enough people care about, people will innovate in their behalf.

In the meantime, go back to looking up. We have a revolution to fight.

Maybe 2008 isn't the cycle for innovating

Luigi Montanez — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:13:41 -0400

I agree with your premise that there just isn't much innovation this cycle, but maybe that's just fine. The rapid innovation and adoption of new technologies that occurred from 2003 to 2006 was staggering. Maybe 2008 is about clamping down best practices, refining strategies, and using the technology out there in the most effective way. Innovation always happens in waves after all.

I noticed that you just couldn't resist the petty cheap shot against Howard Dean in there. I'll try to be the better partisan, so here's to hoping that your side innovates this cycle by becoming a bunch of Republican Preditors.

Leftmost Bit

Ethical Spectacle

bhschenker — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:22:27 -0400

I'd have to file this as an online version of an ethical spectacle. A more digital age version of "Billionaires for Bush" and some of the other organizations before them. This along with "Disco Rudy" in Second Life, etc., are taking the subversive nature of past offline protests ("Billionaires" being the best example of the 04 race) and putting them online through the use of new digital mediums.

Not a new tactic but use of a newer medium. The issue is the internet's ability for anonymity. The irony in this instance is the creator of the video says he was a staffer for Dean (I found that in one or two clicks). I can see much greater issues down the road though especially when its a greater effort by an organization. There, ethical and legal issues as far as expenses will absolutely be raised and I'm sure the FEC will have so hard decisions to make down the road when it comes to online efforts on behalf of or against candidates.

A question I still have is has the identity of the person who created the other "pro-Giuliani" videos been identified, http://www.techpresident.com/node/2823?

Brett Schenker

5B Consulting
http://www.5bconsulting.com

Pretty Despicable

notverybright — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 08:25:26 -0400

Some explanation for what this guy's motivations are can be found in an interview I did with him here.

Funny, I just wrote about this...

Arlen — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:21:25 -0400

I got in touch with the guy who started the Gays for Giuliani thing, and printed an item on my site about it today.

A veteran of the Howard Dean campaign, Davis told The Daily Background that he is filing paperwork with the FEC to create an official Gays for Giuliani PAC and that they “hope to get something up in a month or so.” Davis said he had already received a small number of donations to get a 30 second version of the advertisement on the air in South Carolina, although he had not yet started fundraising in earnest. He says the size of the ad buy will depend on how many people are willing to donate.

You can read the full item here.

Check out my political blog, TheDailyBackground.com

Word

Philip de Vellis — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:26:49 -0400

It is a useful tool for her press shop. It gives them a different voice to push news, but it isn't a major innovation.

Time and resources would be better spent getting the word out on non-campaign sites.

Nice work!

Colin Delany — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:29:29 -0400

Hey Patrick, nice job -- we need to keep our eyes on what's working, not just on what's flashy. My echo:

http://www.epolitics.com/2007/06/29/lets-focus-on-what-really-matters-in-online-political-campaigning/

Colin Delany
e.politics
http://www.epolitics.com

Amen Brother

Luigi Montanez — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:56:54 -0400

I think the reason why YouTube and MySpace are talked about so much not only in the press, but also in the blogosphere (this site being a major player), is because those of us who do the "boring" but important technological/political work of database management, building activism tools, fundraising online, and email strategy are way too damn busy to be blogging about it!

Spot on!

justin@justinhamilton.org — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 08:56:22 -0400

Not only do most people assume a "web site guy" is all you need, I think they fail to realize that what is needed is a multi disciplined expert who has a seat at the decision making table, as much as a chief of staff, comm director or campaign manager.

What title then...

Sue Reen — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 13:59:23 -0400

Phil says Cyrus Krohn should get a better title besides eCampaign Director. What do *you* think his title should be?

I agree with the idea that the internet should be utilized by all parts of the campaign, I'm just trying to flesh out what that really means to a campaign structure:

Presumably the people calling you and Zack for suggestions on an "internet guy" actually need someone who, you know, puts content on the internet. Are flash animations and CMS setups now part of being the communications director? What's the title of the person who does that?

Should the campaign manager be hanging out in the latest social networking app? What's the title of the person who does that? Do they work in field or communications?

Are the backend functions of the website just a part of IT/Operations?

Who is the gatekeeper when finance says they need personal fundraising pages and they have the perfect (Salesforce-like) vendor and field says they need social networking and they have the perfect (Facebook-like) software, but the databases don't talk to each other. Is it the same person who evaluates the best anti-virus solution for the campaign laptops?

Who creates the YouTube account and encodes the video? Is it the same person/department managing the Twitter account?

You get my point...

All of these are functions of a someone who would be considered an "Internet Person". I'm not disagreeing with the premise of your post, just trying to see how it would actually be implemented.

Citizens are the "Big Brother" of today

Marisa — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:58:20 -0400

I agree with one of the comments. This will happen regardless. Funny to think that citizens are actually the "Big Brother" of our country.
Marisa