The Coming Digital Presidency 464
Ranjit Mathoda writes "Marc Andreeson, the cofounder of Netscape, met Senator Barack Obama in early 2007. Mr. Andreeson recalls, "In particular, the Senator was personally interested in the rise of social networking, Facebook, Youtube, and user-generated content, and casually but persistently grilled us on what we thought the next generation of social media would be and how social networking might affect politics — with no staff present, no prepared materials, no notes. He already knew a fair amount about the topic but was very curious to actually learn more." As a social organizer and a lover of new technologies, Mr. Obama could be expected to make good use of such tools in getting elected, and he has done so. What may not be as obvious is that Mr. Obama appears to have a keen interest in using such technologies in the act of governing. And whether Mr. Obama becomes president, or Mrs. Clinton or Mr. McCain do, these new tools have the potential to transform how government operates."
What's the REAL significance of any of this? (Score:5, Insightful)
The candidate I saw leveraging the power of the Internet the most, early in this election, was Ron Paul -- and it looked like most people just used it to smear the guy. EG. "Nobody but spammers and a few computer geeks with loud mouths care about him!"
Yes, the future of politics has much to do with the Internet as a communications medium. Unfortunately, the majority of people using it as a "primary" source of information and content is the younger generation. Folks (like my parents and all of their friends) who are retirement age voters, by contrast, generally pay NO attention to a speech given over YouTube, or what a candidate posts on a FaceBook or MySpace page. And the 40-something and 50-something crowd? It's a "mixed bag" right now. Some are very "net-savvy", while a good percentage of others write it off as "the computer stuff my kids are into".
I think you've got to let a few more election years come and go in this country before the MAJORITY of voters will really be "on-board" with the Internet as their information source, vs. traditional media like television, newspapers and radio.
Re:A bit presumptuous, no? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A bit presumptuous, no? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I think nothing has changed. Almost everyone who liked Obama before they heard the preacher still likes him. And everyone who didn't like Obama before still don't like him. I doubt a huge segment of the population has changed their minds about any of the candidates.
Making the body politic a mob. (Score:4, Insightful)
This US is a republic, not a popular democracy. The American founders were well deeply concerned with the possibility of mob government - hence (for example) the Senate, the Electoral College, and our system of checks and balances. (Yes, a gross simplification, but this is my lunch break.) The Founders were afraid of the mob for good reason. So should we.
The idea of using Facebook, MySpace, and Digg as instruments of government is, in some ways, breathtakingly foolish. Reading the content on Digg - full of conspiracy theories, slander, and bigotry - seems reminiscent of the chants of a mob, not the (theoretically desired) reasoned vox populi.
The anonymity of the Internet, combined with the speed of activity on the Web, seems to lead in many cases to an amplification of our baser instincts. Do we want our political leaders receiving input from commercial Web sites, with no means of identifying who or what is promoting certain causes?
For months Digg was filled with article after article promoting the merits of Dr. Ron Paul, the coming Messiah who will Redeem America. After Dr. Ron Paul, savior, left the race we have the new and exciting stage of articles promoting the merits of Senator Obama, the Messiah who will Redeem America. True, their could be an upswell of support from individual users, but are we perhaps seeing an organized campaign(s) manipulating Web 2.0 sites for their own purposes? With anonymity of site users, who can tell?
I've watched as the social media sites race to extremes. The load, most obnoxious writers gain the most attention; well reasoned arguments are often more dull and are ignored. Debates on sites such as Daily Kos revert on a daily base to name calling, ad hominen attacks, and sheer bloody-mindedness. Is this how we want our leaders to be influenced? In many cases on Daily Kos you'll see the same author online throughout the entire day, every day writing "diaries" and defending their positions. Who the hell are these people? How can they afford to avoid work to write their blog entries? Are those who use FaceBook a representative sample of the population, or the young, hip, and independently wealthy?
Social Media sites dramatically lower the costs of individual citizens involvement in the political process. That's a Good Thing. Yet if we don't anticipate and accept the manipulation of those sites by external agencies and those with far too much time on their hands, we're bloody damn fools.
Re:A bit presumptuous, no? (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been voting since 1976 and only rarely wanted the candidate that I voted for to win more than I've wanted the the competition to lose. In the last election Kerry didn't interest me at all, but I voted for him anyway because I liked Bush a whole lot less.
Maybe it's time to vote for the candidate that we actually want. Only then will the third party candidates have a chance at winning.
Re:Digital Presidency? more like FARKING SPAMMER (Score:1, Insightful)
That's what it sounds like to me.
Re:A bit presumptuous, no? (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed! There is no way in hell I would vote for Obama's preacher for President.
Re:A bit presumptuous, no? (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you want? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't understand this highly negative reaction. People are disenfranchised with the government, so surely it's a good thing that the government wants to find better ways for people to have a voice? It's really a question of communication, not control. That is, unless you believe this is a veiled way for government thought police to get into your brain. (Dons tinfoil hat.)
Your reaction reminds me of the typical paranoid position. If someone helps you they are interfering unnecessarily. If they don't help you, then they are conspiring to do you in. If they offer you the choice then they are manipulating you.
So the real question is - how would you like your opinion heard on issues that matter to you, such as the M$ hemogony or network neutrality? Or are you willing to take a stand and say that an ideal unobtrusive government does not need your opinion.
Re:A bit presumptuous, no? (Score:3, Insightful)
Falwell doesn't hold sway with anyone right now, because he's dead.
Re:A bit presumptuous, no? (Score:3, Insightful)
The electorate.
Re:What's the REAL significance of any of this? (Score:3, Insightful)
=Smidge=
Re:A bit presumptuous, no? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, that's all for the general election. Right now, the only ones really campaigning are going after "super delegates". In order to get them, each is trying to look more "electable" than the other. Because of this, little gaffes matter much more.
Re:A bit presumptuous, no? (Score:2, Insightful)
He's Not a Racist (Score:5, Insightful)
There's absolutely no equation of Obama's preacher to a klansman. Klansmen are sick bastards joining a secret society with an unbroken tradition of universal hate (except for worshiping an imaginary idol of a White supremacy that almost ripped the country in half and destroyed it). Klansmen are murders, arsonists, rapists, and traitors, who demand the genocide and enslavement of the entire world, except a few people who look like them (but women are property).
Obama's preacher is a guy who sometimes shouts about racial and social injustice, and demands... that America stop killing innocent people, stop persecuting the Black community, face the fact that Hillary Clinton isn't in touch with the hardest problems many Americans face because of their race. Sure, he can get jerky and obnxious about it, and even be wrong about some of the injustices - and even more wrong failing to admit how much persecution of American Blacks is perpetuated inside the Black community, not by "Whitey". But he's got a right to be wrong. Hell, he's a preacher - he stands up every week to insist people do things because an imaginary supernatural force says so - his whole gig is unprovable, so he's going to be wrong sometimes. But what does he demand we do about it? He demands that we are compassionate, that we take care of one another, that we're honest about how we hurt each other, and that we do better.
Not what we reject from klansmen, even if we disagree with him, or offended by him.
Meanwhile, George Bush has sent us to war in Iraq and against "Terror" by invoking his own crackpot Christian ideas of Israel's sacrificial role in the "Rapture". He claims "God" told him to invade Iraq. He's actually lying, stealing and killing people in Jesus' name. McCain has relentlessly sought the endorsement of some of the most sick "Christian" preachers in America. Like Jerry Falwell before Falwell just died, even though McCain had earlier rejected Falwell as a crazyman when Falwell was endorsing Bush against McCain. But after Falwell and Pat Robertson blamed "gays, feminists, abortionists, the ACLU" [youtube.com] for making "God" send us the 9/11/2001 attacks, McCain eagerly pursued their endorsements and kneeled at their feet. McCain went after endorsements [google.com] from "reverends" John Hagee [google.com] and Rod Parsley [google.com], who preach crazy "Left Behind" hatred of anyone not fitting their definition of "Christian" - like Catholics, whose church he says is a "whore", a direct agent of the devil. Hoping for those other people to burn alive in the streets, endorsing the widespread massacre of "sinners" by gangs of "Christians" trying to score their way into heaven when the Rapture leaves them behind for not having been sufficiently hateful in the "near-End Times". These people want global murder, actual apocalypse, and will pressure a president who listens to them to hand out nukes to maniacs in the Mideast to "bring it on".
Even the popular Billy Graham, who's had the ear of every president since Nixon, is a racist and antisemit who used to laugh it up with Nixon (and surely the rest, but off-tape) about what to do about the "problem" with those non-WASPs.
Clinton isn't much better, worshiping for years with "The Fellowship" (or "The Family") [google.com], a gender-segregated prayer group that's mostly secret, but includes some of
Facts (Score:1, Insightful)
There's no connection between Obama and Farrakhan, excpet they're both Black. I guess it's easy to make that mistake if you're a racist who says any one Black person's actions are shared by every Black person.
Not "all's fair in love and politics". I'd hate to see your lover if you really think that. And that kind of attitude is exactly why we have a faithy Republican regime that is stopped by nothing decent in pursuing power and the flood of money it can steal behind fake "Christian" posturing.
Just because Republicans have lowered American politics to divisive attacks irrelevant to facts, but playing on the worst impulses of Americans doesnt' mean we all have to accept it. Not when there's an alternative.
Re:A bit presumptuous, no? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think Obama is racist, but when he compared his gradmother's occasional casual racism to a man who spews it every day and with clear design, I have to question his judgement. Does he really not understand the difference? I admit people sometimes have a blind spot with people they grew up with, but still...
I have no idea who to vote for. Is Dave Barry running again?
Time for a bitch slap (Score:1, Insightful)
Ok, get out yer flamebait mods... I'm full of Karma anyway and itchin to burn off a bit.
No. Just no. You assholes got that talking point out within minutes of the Wright scandal breaking and it is just bullshit. If you can't see the difference you are just too retarded to be allowed to walk around loose so I won't even go there and just assume you are a political hack who knows he is lying his ass off and doesn't care because 'the ends justify the means.' No it doesn't. Only bad things come from that kind of thinking.
There is a world of difference between allowing someone slightly dodgy to endorse you and you endorsing them. Mr. McCain was NOT my preferred candidate (conservative leaning non-idiotarian libertarian who can't forgive McCain-Feingold) but lets keep some honesty in the political debate shall we? Hagee is a bit of a twit from what I can find but it isn't THAT bad. McCain simply negotiated and obtained an endorsement from the guy. It would be no more fair to assume McCain agrees with Hagee on that basis than to assume Obama agrees with with Kos's more insane notions because dailykos is supporting Obama with Obamas knowledge and lack of repudiation.
Now on the other hand, if you attend a church for two decades, are baptized into Christianity in that Church, are married in that church and have your two daughters baptized there, donate non-trivial sums of tithes to a church, etc. it is reasonable for people to assume that the person doing these things endorses the views of that particular church.... otherwise they would have picked a different church. Ok, can everyone see the difference now? See why this problem isn't going to go away with one (admittedly pretty darned good) speech?
Imagine John McCain being discovered to be a regular viewer of and contributer to Pat Robertson. Still think a person't choice of religious instructor doesn't matter? That it wouldn't affect his political views? And Robertson, while a genuine asshole, hasn't even approached the levels of insanity and hate the Rev. Wright managed to attain. To make the comparison valid you would have to have McCain slumming at Stormfront as well.
But it gets worse. Just warming a pew was bad enough, Obama claims Wright to be a mentor. But even that isn't the bad part. Obama's whole reason to exist is to bring "Change, Hope and Unity." He has no documented political accomplishments to point to. He promises to transcend race and be a uniter but he had a perfect, made to order, opportunity to lead a depraved, bigoted minister and a congregation deep into conspiracy madness and self destructive beliefs to healing and back to the teachings of Jesus. Leadership iz Fail. And we are expected to believe (i.e. take on faith with less evidence than there is behind any religion) that if we but elevate this cipher to President of the United States and Defender of Western Civilivation that only then will his unbound skills be revealed.
Re:Facts (Score:2, Insightful)
You know why a lot of Republicans go listen to Pat Robertson - its because he preaches less than you!
It's your side that makes divisive attacks because you continually view the world as haves and have nots. Every time one of you liberals does not have something, instead of blaming your lot in life on your own dumb decisions, you have to make yourself the victim of some nefarious conspiracy.
Indeed, as much as liberals bemoan any conservative social initiatives, they see absolutely no need to attempt to reason or compromise their own point of view, and would have government ram it down the throats via the congress if elected, and through the courts if not. It is not conservatives that want to mandate what kind of houses people buy, what kind of cars people own, whether or not they have guns, or how they manage their money. Nope, that's all liberals, arguing, divisively, that they have the right to impose their social point of view on everyone in the country because their cause is 'morally right'.
It's absurd. There's no moral superiority in the left. It rationalizes racism against white people, and its environmental stances are a joke. You are innately divisive, because you judge people on everything.
Here's just one environmental example: Where's Sierra Club and MoveOn about estrogens from birth control leaching into environment? We have a controlled experiment in Canada where they took a lake, dumped 1 part in a -trillion- of birth control into it, and it lowered the birth rates of a number of species and caused deformities in others. It's solid, repeatable science, birth control at dosage levels equivalent to people peeing destroys aquatic life in the environment. Case closed. But... there's not a single word about this issue. But, god forbid, if someone buys an SUV, or owns a rifle, they are an evil destroyer of the environment. The moral of the story is, while you are complaining about someone destroying the atmosphere by owning a truck, bear in mind that you have most likely killed all of the frogs in the western world so you can get laid. And then, if killing all the frogs isn't good enough, you go and kill your offspring like so much tissue. You talk about sustainable living and having good practices, and here you are wrecking the planet and killing millions of unborn children so that you can pretend reproduction is a recreational pasttime.
There's no moral superiority on your side, and you don't need to come out like a bunch of thugs and pretend that there is, because I'm not and no one else is going to believe it. But if you go and say, well, here's what I want out of government, then, maybe there's room for compromise.
Re:A bit presumptuous, no? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A bit presumptuous, no? (Score:2, Insightful)
I grew up in another country, and I was taught to vote for what you believe in, not the lesser of multiple evils. The last presidential election was the first time I ever voted (been in the US since 96), and honestly, I am not sure if I will vote for any of these candidates.. I have of course not decided.
Then again, I am sure I will catch plenty of crap from people who will say I have no right to complain since I did not vote, but what is the point of voting these days, I do not see any change happening in my lifetime, its just going to be the same crap with a different political point of view and lots of infighting.
Ah well.. we will see
Obama is the furthest to the left. He is the most liberal of the bunch.
Hillary is still pretty far left, but not nearly as far as Obama. I've seen left-wingers (opposite of what some would call a NeoCon) call Hillary a neo-con.
Both Hillary and Obama are pretty much steadfast Democrats.
John McCain has been called a maverick. He was the farthest left candidate (most liberal) in the Republican primaries. There has been talk of him actually switching parties. Many Republicans call McCain a RINO, or Republican In Name Only, meaning that is way to liberal to be considered a Republican. In 2000, McCain was kinda where Ron Paul is today. A straight shooter who is not afraid to take on the party establishment. He will not hesitate to join forces with Democrats if he feels the goal is just. He puts his opinions well ahead of the opinions of any political party.
So, if you're left of center, vote Hillary. If you're WAY left of center, vote Obama. If you middle of the road or right, vote McCain. Also, keep in mind that your location on the political spectrum is when compared to the rest of the nation. We are all middle of the road in our own minds.
Of course, do your own research. Don't use any single source as so many are biased. Look for the candidate meets your views the closest, can get stuff done, and you feel will do the best job. This is who you vote for. Also, keep in mind that when November comes, you will only have Hillary OR Obama running against McCain, not both.
Or, as George Carlin put it, you can stay home and masturbate on election day. At least then you'll have something to show for your efforts. As for people you say you can't bitch because you didn't vote, you reply with, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for that A--Hole"
Hope that helps.
(It may be Off Topic to TFA, but it is inline with what the parent said)
OK, America is officially screwed (Score:3, Insightful)
America is screwed.
It won't matter who is elected by whatever means, all the candidates have run campaigns of such breathtaking shallowness there is no way you have any idea exactly what policies any one of them will implement. You have been reduced to voting based upon sound bites, who they associate with, what their pastor said, what religion they are/are not, what tall tales they tell about their visits to war regions, etc. All points completely irrelevant to the actual actions that they will take during their governing of the country called the United States of America.
You might say their "mis-speakings" indicate they are not trustworthy. But who cares? You cannot inherently trust any government figure as there are too many vested interests vying for their attention. Interests with a lot more money and influence than you have. As far as I can see the best thing Americans can do is try to pin down the candidates on a common range of issues you know they will have to deal with during their term and hold them to that. Shorten this ridiculous one-year election process, hold just a few real debates and don't give anyone the opportunity to turn the process into a mud slinging contest.
McCain may now end up being president because he's coming across as a single stable party candidate against a couple of petty, bickering rivals who have nothing better to do than point out each others failings.
I had a bit of hope before that the end of the Bush era would bring in a new renaissance for the US. I have absolutely no hope of that happening now.
Re:Making the body politic a mob. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A bit presumptuous, no? (Score:5, Insightful)
The last two Popes' actions and words have been responsible for numerous deaths and broken lives, something that I doubt can be said for the Reverend Wright. Both have also been responsible for some good works.
I might be cognitive dissonance: you wind up ignoring the bad things about someone because they don't match up with the world view promoted by the good things, and you prefer to trust in the good things. Or it might be the crazy old uncle who becomes more intolerant over time who you vehemently disagree with but choose not to upset too much because he was good to you when you were younger. In the end you have to judge Obama by what he does and says rather than what one or two individuals around him say. Should Jesus be judged by Judas' actions?
Fuck. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because an older black man who grew up having to sit at the back of the bus still has the mindset that America is racist against blacks (and yes, it still is, but obviously not like back then), and speaks his mind about it, he's racist against whites now? And because he condemns the acts of the Israeli government against Palestine he's an anti-semite? People need to do their research and stop listening to Rush Limbaugh (he actually has the audacity to call Wright a "racist, poison-spewing hate-monger" when he has to have seen the whole sermon.)
What the hell is wrong with people? They don't want a president who's willing to listen to the views of someone who thinks there's some problems with racism in America? They don't want a president who's willing to listen to the views of someone who's not totally happy with everything in America, and says something about it? Remember, he repudiated Wright's more abrasive comments, but in a show of good character, didn't abandon the man. And I believe one of the founding fathers said something to the effect of, "the greatest patriots of this country are those who are willing to question it." (I don't remember exact words or who it was, that's a paraphrase.)
Re:Fuck. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Meeting Wright != 20 Years of Mentorship (Score:4, Insightful)
As for the whole Wright thing...... Thanks AaronW (33736)
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/ [cnn.com]
Re:Meeting Wright != 20 Years of Mentorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Intent is far more important than experience. A good leader will bring people into his or her circle who are more knowledgeable and more experienced. They are then leveraged to make intelligent choices. Obama's lack of experience in the Senate has almost nothing to do with how well he will run the office of the President.
Re:OK, America is officially screwed (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Ron Paul, Kucinich and Gravel ran competent campaigns based on the preservation of civil liberties, respect for the Constitution, and the total revision of current economic and foreign policies.
However, Americans are too indoctrinated and too dependent on the mass media to tell them what to think. The media marginalized these 3 candidates, relegating them to footnotes, and here we are.
Re:OK, America is officially screwed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:OK, America is officially screwed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What's the REAL significance of any of this? (Score:3, Insightful)
I always fear people who think that they are 100% correct, and that everyone who disagrees with them are ignorant. Someone saying they are unequivocally right is generally a good sign of mental unbalance, and potentially violent fanaticism, and this reason sets us up for more of the usual "us vs them" idiocy that causes so many problems in the world today.
You, sir, are as fallible as I am (pretty damn), congratulations.
This isn't an attack on libertarianism, though I don't agree with it 100%, and think it has some unrealistic propositions. I do think that there needs to be more libertarians to balance things out a bit, but I never would want them to "win". I don't want any other dogmatic political ideology to win either, since I beleive that American politics work best with raucious dissent from all sides. For disambiguation, my two hopefulls in the primary were BOTH Kucenich AND Paul, since they both represent a sadly unrepresented fringe of politics who both have some valid (albeit controversal) political ideas that are sadly missing from modern political discussion.
I am knowledgable on both the constitution, and history, as much as I can be as a non-historian, and non-lawyer layperson. From history (and a liberal dose of Foucault) I learn that there are no absolute interpretation of things, these change based on the context we were currently emeshed in. The present changes how we view the past. The constitution is nothing but an artifact of the past (a very important one), and thus it is only natural that it would be intrepreted differently than it was originally. On a less philosophical note; the constitution was written in a VERY different age than the one in which we now exist, thus obviously bits of it have to change, or be interpretted differently, to keep it viable (and thus the Union) in modern times.
Has it been abused? Yes. But can we accept it literally? About as well as we can accept the Bible as literal truth, meaning no. Do we need people who wish to read it literally? Yes, since they can serve as a check to those who wish to rewrite its meaning and content.