Hillary Clinton is holding online town halls meetings online over the next three days where she will take questions from real folks. Did Edwards do that?
I tend to think you are looking at conversation too narrowly. I think you are too focused on whether the campaigns have reached out to you (and tech bloggers) personally and not what they are doing overall.
orcmid
· 2 years ago
Yes, Edwards did do that. And in real-time as part of a webcast of a live event. It was broader reach than tech bloggers and continues to be so.
It is going to be very interesting to see the different styles of Edwards, Obama, and Clinton and how there is engagement. I think it will be great that they, and other candidates, work to create grass roots participation in the thoughtful discussion of issues leading up to selection of candidates and Election 2008.
I noticed that Obama and Clinton, so far, have done one-way videos and I found Clinton's the least engaging and more like a meet-the-candidate campaign commercial. I expect that to change and I look forward to having a better sense of all three of these candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Alfred Thompson
· 2 years ago
Todd, yes John Edwards did take questions from real people online and in person during his first three day trip. I was in New Hampshire for his visit there and there were a bunch of real people to talk to him. Will Clinton be in NH to see real people face to face and eye to eye? That to me is the real thing.
I don't think I buy the idea of campaigns being conversations. I think they are about the appearence of having a conversation. Candidates want you to believe they are listening to you and that they will continue to listen. It is a show like any other. The answers to questions are carefully scripted and few if any questions come as a suprise to a well prepared candidate.
I think that letting Robert on the plane was a lot closer to a real conversation that we are used to but more because Robert is more naive than the average reporter. I mean that in a good way BTW. I worry that too many in the media are jaded and less interested in the person they are interviewing than in getting the right quote out of them. Robert is a low closer to a "real person" than Barbara Walters will ever be again.
Mujibur
· 2 years ago
Robert, you are bringing to politics what you brought to tech.
Fanboy ravings from someone who trades access for good press. I'm a lot more concerned as the issues when it comes to these candidates as opposed to whether they meet with bloggers.
I'm sure you'd find something to criticize even if they did meet with bloggers other than yourself. Funny how that seems to happen with you.
Idiot.
Todd Zeigler
· 2 years ago
Thanks for the info on Edwards's townhall. I think Edwards is doing a great job. I just think too much emphasis is being placed on Edward's meetings with influential tech bloggers. I just don't think the fact that he woos some influential bloggers to get good press is a sign that he is going to revolutionize politics.
Chris G.
· 2 years ago
I think you also have to give the campaigns a little time to ramp up.
In Edwards case, he basically has been campaigning for the past year or so. He already had an organization setup and ready to roll. Very easy to get things together and schedule time with bloggers when you have already done all of the preparation to get to that point!
In Obama's and Hillary's cases, they literally just announced this past week. Neither has really toured the country in "campaign" mode, as they both have jobs (the Senate).
Give them a little time is what I say.
Benny
· 2 years ago
I don't understand how the first commenter, who compared John Edwards' website and others http://www.bivingsreport.com/2007/whos-it-gonna... could have missed the TH archives on his website. I noticed he looked at HRC's pretty carefully yesterday.
I was at the Iowa one where I met Robert and was part of the bloggers' group Edwards met with before the Town Hall.
Chuck Colson also did a great job getting the behind the scenes activities (for Rocketboom), but it wasn't quite as wide as Robert's footage was on the Net.
And on Wednesday, there will be a live online video session discussing the SOTU at 9:30 ET. http://johnedwards.com/.
Robert is right to point out who was first.
Robert, what is the matter with your next page link?
Emmett O'Connell
· 2 years ago
Edwards hasn't been the only one who has talked with bloggers "who aren't avowed supporters." Richardson has had meetings with bloggers in Seattle and South Carolina. While the Seattle meeting was organized by Richardson supporters, only two there supported him at the time. One now runs Washington (state) for Edwards.
Scott
· 2 years ago
I think they mean "best use of viral media by a candidate with a chance to win." We all know what Edwards stands for. Whatever you want him to stand for.
Benny
· 2 years ago
I posted my comment before reading "I just think too much emphasis is being placed on Edward’s meetings with influential tech bloggers."
Todd: Edwards meets with regular bloggers, not just high profile geeks like you and Robert.
Moreover, I got a meeting with him back in June, a few days before Gnomedex. I assure any reader here, I'm just a blogger, and do not have a fat wallet.
Both John and Elizabeth met with regular bloggers yesterday too before the Town Hall in Iowa City. They care very deeply about the conversation that Mrs. Clinton claims to want to have. When she, and not her spouse, sits down one on one with "just us folks" , then we'll see how authentic she is. So far, I've not sensed that from her or Senator Obama, although someone reported he did meet with some Ohio bloggers last summer, which he gets some credit for.
Elizabeth has been known to get on the JE08 and wish a long time supporter "Happy Birthday", as recently as January 12th. I cannot see Obama and Clinton doing that either.
Benny
· 2 years ago
oops..Edwards'..not Edward's (John Edward is a famous person, but for a different reason ):-)
Todd Zeigler
· 2 years ago
Benny - ours is a group blog and I didn't write the post you are referring to. That post also says that Edwards has by far the best Presidential website so far.
Benny
· 2 years ago
Todd, thanks for the clarification. I do like the site otherwise. You have data that from a researcher standpoint that is interesting.
Just wanted to let you know about "regular" bloggers.
thebadgers
· 2 years ago
Please check out the blog and read chapters 1 and 2 on the chapters page, and comment on them. Thanks!
Robert P.
· 2 years ago
Chris G., If Obama's web presence leaves something to be desired, it can be forgiven. Up until two years ago he was a State Senator from a small subsection of Chicago, then US Senator for two years, now suddenly running for President.
But, if Hillary is not ready, then she is solely to blame for that. She has been getting ready forever and a day, so a lack of internet chops cannot be easily explained away by the "recent" announcement.
Rex Dixon
· 2 years ago
Exactly! Hillary and Obama are a day late, dollar short. The only campaign that has talked to me is of course the same one that has talked to YOU. I had a great conversation with Ryan back on Thursday. They are the ONLY ones asking for Rex Dixon's opinion! :)
Rex
sean garrett
· 2 years ago
wow. it's january 2007. this is a 2008 presidential campaign. let's give the candidates some time to fully staff their campaigns and develop worthy "conversational" tools. I'd rather it be done right than rushed into with the flavor of the hour methodology.
Rick Matthews
· 2 years ago
Wow Robert, its hard to tell if you are really wanting credit to be given to the Candidate (Edwards) or the person group filming it (Podtech/ScobleShow).
abu ameerah
· 2 years ago
i wish Al Gore could somehow run again...after he created the internet...lol
Big Al could show clips of his environmental documentary/docudrama/documovie, whatever, and just scare the heck out of potential voters...
Nikolaj Stenberg
· 2 years ago
@ Scoble
The brits seem to be doing a great job at being "conversational" if you look at the website of David Cameron, the leader of their conservative party. And! It has a catchy name: www.webcameron.org.uk/ :-)
John Dowdell
· 2 years ago
.
.
"Apple doesn't 'get' blogging", round II.... ;-)
.
.
David Dalka
· 2 years ago
If campaigns are conversations, candidates don't have staff "print off blog entries" - this is neither a conversation nor environmentally friendly :(
i have to admit, obama and the rest of the stooges are making hillary look VIABLE. and that is quite an accomplishment.
Benny
· 2 years ago
i have to admit, obama and the rest of the stooges are making hillary look VIABLE. and that is quite an accomplishment.
Sez Who?
Edwards was first. Now who sez who?
Robert P.
· 2 years ago
"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 Scoble
· 2 years ago
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.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
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.
Damon Billian
· 2 years ago
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.
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".
Benny
· 2 years ago
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.
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".
Benny
· 2 years ago
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.
Brent
· 2 years ago
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.
security
· 2 years ago
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).
LayZ
· 2 years ago
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.
PW
· 2 years ago
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?
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
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.
Brent
· 2 years ago
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).
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
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.
Brent
· 2 years ago
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.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
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.
Ken Camp
· 2 years ago
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.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
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.
Brent
· 2 years ago
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!
Emmett O'Connell
· 2 years ago
@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.
Ken Camp
· 2 years ago
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.
LayZ
· 2 years ago
@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.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
LayZ: I keep bringing it up because people here keep making the assertion that Edwards doesn't have a chance.
Howard Dean had a chance too, it's just that his ground troops and his TV advertising sucked.
If Edwards leads in the polls and then delivers TV ads that piss people off and doesn't have people on the ground who understand how to get people out to vote without pissing them off, then he'll lose too.
One other thing: Howard Dean wasn't a true blogger. We learned that on the night he lost in Iowa. It was then that I realized that Joe Trippi was blogging, not Howard Dean. That's totally different in Edwards' case.
LayZ
· 2 years ago
And Osama is leading in New Hampshire and he's not even declared; what's your point? And national polls show Billary leading, Osama 2nd and Edwards 3rd. So again I ask: what's your point? Are you suggesting Edwards is leading in Iowa because he's supposedly blogging? If so, that is quite a stretch. He's leading in the polls because at the moment because he's essentially been living in Iowa hoping to make himself legitimate. Osama and Billary haven't even put boots on the ground, yet
It's not going to matter if the candidates or their lackey's blog or not. What going to matter is money, and Billary and Osama can out fund raise Edwards any day of the week. They will also dominate the key demographics in the Democratic party: women and African Americans. And no amount of blogging will change that.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
LayZ: Howard Dean raised the most money last time around and he lost Iowa. Translation: money matters, but it doesn't matter as much as whether you can get people out to vote and it doesn't matter as much as whether your TV ads are effective.
I still remember Apple's 1984 Macintosh ad. It only ran once. You don't need a whole lot of money to totally change a campaign.
Scott
· 2 years ago
Nice house Edwards is building. Just what I'd expect from a "man-of-the-people."
"The rambling structure sits in the middle of a 102-acre estate on Old Greensboro Road west of Chapel Hill. The heavily wooded site and winding driveway ensure that the home is not visible from the road. "No Trespassing" signs discourage passersby from venturing past the gate."
All Comments
I tend to think you are looking at conversation too narrowly. I think you are too focused on whether the campaigns have reached out to you (and tech bloggers) personally and not what they are doing overall.
It is going to be very interesting to see the different styles of Edwards, Obama, and Clinton and how there is engagement. I think it will be great that they, and other candidates, work to create grass roots participation in the thoughtful discussion of issues leading up to selection of candidates and Election 2008.
I noticed that Obama and Clinton, so far, have done one-way videos and I found Clinton's the least engaging and more like a meet-the-candidate campaign commercial. I expect that to change and I look forward to having a better sense of all three of these candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination.
I don't think I buy the idea of campaigns being conversations. I think they are about the appearence of having a conversation. Candidates want you to believe they are listening to you and that they will continue to listen. It is a show like any other. The answers to questions are carefully scripted and few if any questions come as a suprise to a well prepared candidate.
I think that letting Robert on the plane was a lot closer to a real conversation that we are used to but more because Robert is more naive than the average reporter. I mean that in a good way BTW. I worry that too many in the media are jaded and less interested in the person they are interviewing than in getting the right quote out of them. Robert is a low closer to a "real person" than Barbara Walters will ever be again.
Fanboy ravings from someone who trades access for good press. I'm a lot more concerned as the issues when it comes to these candidates as opposed to whether they meet with bloggers.
I'm sure you'd find something to criticize even if they did meet with bloggers other than yourself. Funny how that seems to happen with you.
Idiot.
In Edwards case, he basically has been campaigning for the past year or so. He already had an organization setup and ready to roll. Very easy to get things together and schedule time with bloggers when you have already done all of the preparation to get to that point!
In Obama's and Hillary's cases, they literally just announced this past week. Neither has really toured the country in "campaign" mode, as they both have jobs (the Senate).
Give them a little time is what I say.
could have missed the TH archives on his website. I noticed he looked at HRC's pretty carefully yesterday.
I was at the Iowa one where I met Robert and was part of the bloggers' group Edwards met with before the Town Hall.
Chuck Colson also did a great job getting the behind the scenes activities (for Rocketboom), but it wasn't quite as wide as Robert's footage was on the Net.
And on Wednesday, there will be a live online video session discussing the SOTU at 9:30 ET. http://johnedwards.com/.
Robert is right to point out who was first.
Robert, what is the matter with your next page link?
Todd: Edwards meets with regular bloggers, not just high profile geeks like you and Robert.
I'm a prime example.
Moreover, I got a meeting with him back in June, a few days before Gnomedex. I assure any reader here, I'm just a blogger, and do not have a fat wallet.
Both John and Elizabeth met with regular bloggers yesterday too before the Town Hall in Iowa City. They care very deeply about the conversation that Mrs. Clinton claims to want to have. When she, and not her spouse, sits down one on one with "just us folks" , then we'll see how authentic she is. So far, I've not sensed that from her or Senator Obama, although someone reported he did meet with some Ohio bloggers last summer, which he gets some credit for.
Elizabeth has been known to get on the JE08 and wish a long time supporter "Happy Birthday", as recently as January 12th. I cannot see Obama and Clinton doing that either.
Just wanted to let you know about "regular" bloggers.
If Obama's web presence leaves something to be desired, it can be forgiven. Up until two years ago he was a State Senator from a small subsection of Chicago, then US Senator for two years, now suddenly running for President.
But, if Hillary is not ready, then she is solely to blame for that. She has been getting ready forever and a day, so a lack of internet chops cannot be easily explained away by the "recent" announcement.
Rex
Big Al could show clips of his environmental documentary/docudrama/documovie, whatever, and just scare the heck out of potential voters...
The brits seem to be doing a great job at being "conversational" if you look at the website of David Cameron, the leader of their conservative party. And! It has a catchy name: www.webcameron.org.uk/ :-)
.
"Apple doesn't 'get' blogging", round II.... ;-)
.
.
:(
http://daviddalka.com/createvalue/2007/01/17/jo...
Sez Who?
Edwards was first. Now who sez who?
Looks like the meme is out - you techies are all going to fall in line for Obama.
http://www.dariosalvelli.com/2007/01/virtual-po...
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".
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.
Sorry, according to that story, you support Obama, all you techies. Looks like you have no choice.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news...
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".
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.
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).
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.
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).
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Howard Dean had a chance too, it's just that his ground troops and his TV advertising sucked.
If Edwards leads in the polls and then delivers TV ads that piss people off and doesn't have people on the ground who understand how to get people out to vote without pissing them off, then he'll lose too.
One other thing: Howard Dean wasn't a true blogger. We learned that on the night he lost in Iowa. It was then that I realized that Joe Trippi was blogging, not Howard Dean. That's totally different in Edwards' case.
It's not going to matter if the candidates or their lackey's blog or not. What going to matter is money, and Billary and Osama can out fund raise Edwards any day of the week. They will also dominate the key demographics in the Democratic party: women and African Americans. And no amount of blogging will change that.
I still remember Apple's 1984 Macintosh ad. It only ran once. You don't need a whole lot of money to totally change a campaign.
http://www.carolinajournal.com/