Slashdot Mirror
Learn About Political Campaigning on the Internet
This week's Slashdot interview guest, Ben Green, is director of Internet operations for Al Gore's presidential campaign. He's charged with making the algore2000 Web site as big, popular, and efficient as possible. Political campaigning on the Internet is new and still rather experimental in many ways. The point of this interview is not to boost (or diss) Al Gore or any other candidate, but to learn about the process of using the Internet as a political tool, which is of more long-term importance than any single election. One question per post, please. The complete Q&A session is scheduled to appear Friday.
Behold! The power of the internet is vast. I can tell Gore to fuck off, and others can't help but listen. Thank you.
Al Gore is a fine example of bad ai
do you, or your associates engage in cybersquatting, or the practice of buying many url's? do you think this is wrong? what do you think of people who think this is wrong?
look up al gore's congressional voting record. he DID take initiative in boosting the internet. dont beleive the right wing media's propaganda.
Improving and creating are NOT synonyms.
As far as the "right wing media", are you smoking crack?
These are the same media that painted Buchannan as a "hitler lover" because he thinks that the US shouldn't have gotten involved in WWII because OUR national security wasn't threatened.
The same media who supported Clinton by making the whole impechment trial about "personal life" crap instead of about purjury.
Wake up, please.
LK
Improving and creating are NOT synonyms.
As far as the "right wing media", are you smoking crack?
These are the same media that painted Buchannan as a "hitler lover" because he thinks that the US shouldn't have gotten involved in WWII because OUR national security wasn't threatened.
The same media who supported Clinton by making the whole impechment trial about "personal life" crap instead of about purjury.
Wake up, please.
For example, if I start a rumor that Mr. Gore said he "fathered linus torvalds" - how do you diffuse that?
Don't be ridiculous. That rumor would never fly. Everybody knows Linus is Bill Gates' love-child.
THAT YOU SHOULD BUY SOME ROSE-FLAVORED BODY LOTION AND LET ME GENTLY RUB IT INTO YOUR DARKEST PLACES.
THEN SLOWLY BEND OVER AND SPREAD YOUR LEGS FOR ME.
wow..no -1's, and this one is +1? Moderation is almost dead, eh.
Is it tuesday yet?
here are all my kernels from my under my couch cushions. We're all doin what we can.
To save bandwidth, the following message has been efficiently encoded using the BASIC MP4 method:
10 FOR count = 1 TO 100
20 PRINT "In, Out"
30 NEXT count
40 PRINT "Ahh.."
50 PRINT "Now go and make my supper"
Saxo Grammaticus
John McCain has "proposed" extending indefinitely the internet's tax-free status That being said, presidential candidates always talk a ton about what they are going to do without throwing in the little bit of info that CONGRESS makes the laws in this country.
>> John McCain has "proposed" extending indefinitely the internet's tax-free status >> That being said, presidential candidates always talk a ton about what they are going to do without throwing in the little bit of info that CONGRESS makes the laws in this country.
> PossibleUnintentionalPlug John McCain has "proposed" extending indefinitely the internet's tax-free status > /PossibleUnintentionalPlug That being said, presidential candidates always talk a ton about what they are going to do without throwing in the little bit of info that CONGRESS makes the laws in this country.
Behold, I shall smite all thy borders with Trolls. And the river shall bring forth Trolls abundantly, which shall come up and come into thine house, and into thy bedchamber, and upon thy bed give thy wife a damn good seeing to whilst thy be at thine place of toiling.
Saxo Grammaticus
were all doin what we can
For a conservative discussion forum I can recommend the Freepers site the Free Republic. There are many interesting articles posted there every day.
were doin what we can
What security measures have you put in place to prevent crackers from getting root on your site?
What security measures have you put in place to prevent crackers from getting root on Al Gore?
- Your privacy statement reads, in part: We do not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from children 13 and under.
- What is your stance on domain squatting given the fact that someone else owns algore.com?
- The "source code" to your front page reads, in part: I plan to use this space to post special messages to those who are helping to improve our web site...
- As the Director of Internet Operations, how do you handle problems like Gore's infamous "Father of the Internet" gaffe, the problem last Fall with your web site collecting data from children, and other technical issues that (understandably) a politician isn't very familiar with?
- According to the text of this article, you're committed to "making the algore2000 Web site...as efficient as possible." How can you justify that with a whopping 155Kb front page?
- In Vice-President Gore's Technology and Science agenda, nowhere is mentioned things like encryption exports, software patents, so-called roving wiretaps and other pressing technical-human rights issues. Does your candiate have a stance on them?
Thank you for your time,Does this mean that you unknowingly collect it? How could you be unaware of whether you collect data on kids or not?
What does this mean? Why would candidate Gore use an HTML comment to post a message to your web site developers?
Daniel P. McCarty
Dude, Al Gore invented the bit. If it wasnt for him, we wouldn't know the power on or off, positive or negative, yin or yang.
Speaking of yang. Yang my wang. Troll
Forgive me for being cynical, but I see that there is focused interest by politicians in their web sites only after the success of fund-raising on-line (especially by Mccain). A few questions about this: 1) How do you know that the online contributions (or 100$ "entrance fees" for chats, etc.) are not being submitted by the same people multiple time, or by foreign nationals? Or, to put it another way, how do you know that illegal contributions are not not being made on your web site, as they have in recent history in the real world? 2) I've made a few contributions in the "real world", and have noticed that I have almost always gotten better feedback from the candidate when I attach a check to my letter voicing my concerns. Ideally, I'd like cyberspace to be a equalizer, and my opinion to be taken as seriously without a check as with one. I don't this as the case so far - when I participated in Mccain's chat, I got an actual response from the candidate - as opposed to the numerous e-mails that I had sent to his site, which had been replied to with a form letter. What are you doing to make sure all voices are heard, including the disenfranchised? 3) I like the fact that most campaign 2000 web sites have put their canidates agenda on their web sites. The value of this would be increased tenfold if you would be able to put a feedback forum where voters would be able to discuss these agendas. While I not might not be able to discuss Gore's history on tax cuts (http://www.algore2000.com/agenda/tax_cuts.html), Bob from Iowa might know more than I do. Also, I well know the pitfalls of this - trolls, anonymous posts, factual errors, etc (we see this every day on Slashdot :). But there are ways to make sure that there is an informed discussion about's the canidate's issues - for example, I would be willing to send a letter with my proof of voter registration to access such a feature. Also, I know that there are sites out there that offer this functionality - but I believe that it would be a very courageous act if the canidate's site itself hosted such a discussion. 4) Most of us in slashdot work as techies, where your results are what count. I'd like the same to apply to politics. I would like to see a candidate's agenda updated and graded as he get's into office. For example, I would like to see Gore's web site continued if he is elected, and his agenda explained through his term. If he supports a bill with tax cuts, I'd like to see it at http://www.algore2000.com/agenda/tax_cuts.html. In essence, continue the web presence after the election, and TELL US WHAT YOU ARE DOING to keep the promises for which we elected you into office. Thanks for taking your time to answer these questions - next time, please tell Gore to come down here himself :)
Wohoo! I am beginning to really like Tuesdays, At lease with slow /. days you can still find something to do to kill some time. Hmmm, Whats tomorrow hold? Will it be bowls of grits?, Tales of Mick the Postmastah and the Llama? Trollmastah musings, Killer clown stories?, Ascii art? the next episode of Opensource man and Natalie? Maybe it'll be more raisins and Open DK guy, maybe just good old fashoned /. flamebait! Never know, but Tuesdays all the First Posters will be a'trollin and you can bet that +2 insightful that we'll be out in force. So, come on and support the fun, get your trolls ready, 'cause TUESDAY IS FOR TROLLIN'!
With the exponential rise of e-commerce that has occurred over the last few years, and is set to continue over the next few years, the recent Denial of Service attacks could have serious financial implications in the near future. What, if anything, would you consider to be the best way to defend US e-commerce against further malicious attack, and what would be the implications for non-US e-businesses.
Wingnut
Stickers aren't censorship. But AlGore has consistently supported the Administrations' opposition to stong encryption, pro-wiretap stance for law enforcement and ambiguous (read:weak) support for a no-tax internet policy.
Of course, being Al Gore, he will just lie about his record.
Dr.G
PS, as a spelling and grammar troll/nazi, I was disappointed that your post had no errors other than failure to capitalize "Americans"... and that's not my job anyway...
While copper, silver and gold have all been used as currency in history, I now propose the Plutonium standard for wealth:
(1) It discourages currency hoarding - too much wealth and you go critical....
(2) Carrying undue wealth in your pocket affects the genes, making the old rich truly different from me and you (particularly with that third eye);
(3) Eventually, all wealth disappears with radioactive half-life making inflation obsolete;and best of all,
(4) You could figure out your taxes with a simple Geiger counter!
He discovered that the mailing list could be adequetly handled by a PDA.
Harry Browne, an investor and radio talk-show hose, is running for president on the Libertarian Ticket. Visit his webiste:
So, like, if we switch over, I guess that would make Bill Gates Da Bomb!
As we all know, Unisys is collecting license fees on the LZW algorithm which is used in the gif picture format. Did you pay any license fees for images on your site, or did you just use commercial products to produce them? And after all, what is Mr. Gore's position on software patents like these?
OpenDK
Thank you.
does it last beyond the campaign?
Nope. It's just a popularity contest. For some reason people think they're going to keep their word.
Message numbers 7 & 8 of this thread are legitimate questions, yet some asshole moderator marked them as flamebait. WHY?????
I have recently been made aware that Al Gore was the inventor of the internet. Thank's Al, I was wondering if he had any involvement with the recent CSS cracking (DeCSS), if so, do you have a mirror ? My second question, has Al been helping the FBI in tracking down the crackers responsible for downing e-bay, yahoo, etc ?
Q2: What sort of audience is your web-site intended for (e.g., first-time voters, long-time Democrats, journalists, or geeks)? How does this compare with the actual usage of your site?
Q3: Currently, most political web-sites are essentially a way for the candidates to disseminate their message. Does a Slashdot-esque discussion or polling system have a useful role to play in creating two-way communication?
As an engineer and someone deeply involved in (non-American) politics, I am very interested in how computers can affect the technical side of politics.
IIRC, what he said was (coarsely paraphrased) "I took the initiative in creating the Internet" (capital I, proper noun).
The funniest thing about this statement is the amount of grief he gets from chowderheads like you over what is, from a lay perspective, essentially a true statement. The truth of the matter is that way back in the day when nobody but a select few geeks and military types had even heard of the Internet, Al Gore spearheaded the effort to drum up federal funding to create a nation-wide information infrastructure in the US--an action which paved the way for the modern Internet as you, I, and your mom know it. Incidentally, in so doing, he was among the first people to introduce the phrase "information superhighway" into common usage.
So, no, Al Gore did not invent TCP/IP, or hand-weave any fiber-optic lines, but from a lay perspective, he did "take the initiative in creating the Internet," and I don't think it's fair to hold him to any higher standard than that. To do so amounts to nothing more than ridiculing a man for having a vision that far exceeds his technical knowledge.
Some sort of message-board system is very often used on web sites these days to allow visitors to post comments and questions. Will you be implementing such a thing? If you do, will it be moderated - if it's moderated, people won't trust what they read on it as a genuine gauge to opinion; whereas is it isn't moderated, you'll get lots of 'spurious' stuff being posted. How would you go about managing such a system?
Saxo Grammaticus
Man, Al Gore invented the dick (but neglected to give himself one).
Very simple... understand that the web is not only a US thing... gee, some kid-oriented place would be a 10000% better money investment than poliitical spamming like that... slashdot should have never posted any darm political links like this one
Roses are red,
then turn grey,
my heart goes pitter-pat
when you wear that beret.
Next thing you know, that dunce will claim his election will bring passion to the White House.
Seriously though, Clinton/Gore have complained bitterly that the internet allows anyone to make any accusation without the filter of a managing editor, preferably one employed by the New York Times.
>Since the internet allows any uninformed pleb off >the street to tell the world the latest gossip, >populism rules over accuracy. The difference here, Mr. Lenin, is that that "populist gossip" is instantly reviewable by hundreds of millions of citizens, many of whom can and will offer public corrections in the case of "populist" inaccuracy. The Bolshevik stranglehold on information has come to and end. Remember, all of you in the Barnyard: Collectivists gooooooood! Populists & Patriots baaaaaaaaaad! Greetings from the "far-right extremists", P.S. Fuck the Gulag, Fuck the Purges, Fuck the Show Trials, Fuck the Famines, and Fuck You
Is it true that you are, in fact a heterosexual?
4n j00 r34 7#15?
You must have no self-respect after trying to defend such a hilarious lie. He is well known for his exaggeration of the truth, which most of us simply call "lying." Ask Bill Bradley. Ask his own 1988 campaign staff, who repeatedly advised him in polite memos to stop lying.
Douglas, please give us some detaails on that hot swety night between you and Ben! I'm dying to find out how big he is. What a greek god of a man. slurrrp!!
Fuck you and your little centipede, you hairless Cajun prick!
No, you fucking idiot. The people in those parties are even bigger goons and freaks than the two serious parties. Case in point: J Ventura.
A worthy response to a fascinating message, courtesy of a man with no penis. I mean you, not me.
he invented the AlGorithm?? everybody tells me Al Gore has no rhythm....
...2 Live Crew? On the contraire, my friend, several did. Tipper had a great effect on censorship, rousing Bible-thumpers and fanatical Moms everywhere to picket stores that carried the 2 Live Crew. Because of that, several stores (I lived in the South at the time but I'm sure it effected more than the South) refused to carry 2 Live Crew and several other rap and/or heavy metal records.
What really gets me is the bassist from Megadeth is supporting Al Gore. Funny how short his memory is. Let me quote "Hook in Mouth":
F is for Fighting
R is for Red
ancestors blood in battles they shed
E we elect them E we eject them
in the land of the free, home of the brave
D is for dying O your overture
M they will cover your grave with manure
all this spells FREEDOM it means nothing to me
as long as there's a PMRC
WHORE!
Larouche's lawyers threatened to sue the ISPs after the sites were pulled without notice, but learned that a political candidate has no first amendment right of political speech on the internet. That is to say that, if the FBI or IRS or whomever does not want a particular candidate to put up a website, then that candidate has no right of access to this communication medium.
Do you feel that every candidate, including perennial candidates such as Larouche, should enjoy a right of free speech, i.e. a first amendment right to maintain a website during a campaign free of FBI and IRS harassment of its ISPs?
note to roblimo: I understand that some of the people who maintain Larouche's website were original drafters of man pages for linux applications including gimp - With a little effort, it shouldn't be too difficult to get the story straight from them.
Try reading your own posts - you said far-right in it. The fact is, Gore has repeated taken somewhat true situations and exagerated his role in them. He did, in fact, run the committee that helped open the internet to the general public but in the particular interview that is refered to, it is clear that he exagerated his role in that process. Same story again with the whole "Love Story" episode - he was indeed a partial role model for the lead male but he said that it was about himself and Tipper, which the author totally denies. The recently released memos from his own staff confirm this. He is a very intelligent man who has a great depth of knowledge in many areas but he is simply a politician at heart, always trying to make himself appear to be more than he is.
Here here! ;)
Well... you've restored some of my faith in the future
It would be great to see real content vs. fluff. I still don't think they (the candidates/politacal machines) have any real idea how much people will pour over a web-site to analyze something, and then how much people will pass along links they like to friends to read. They are stuck thinking in terms of 'sound bites' that people can remember and pass along.
As for the honorable Governer of Minnesotta, I may not live there, but based on the honesty of his comments alone, he would have had my vote. I'd take him any day of the week over the pandering Mz. Clinton, and Heir Guliani, and plan on voting for whoever is left, almost regardles of who that is.
Also what is Gore's view on hot grits?
Are the storys that he may have poured hot grits in his pants during his college days true?
Thank You
Not only is the al gore site just plain boring, it's also *horribly* inaccessible. I use Netscape 4.7 on a Mac (os9) and I can't get to whole sections of the website which are available only to those who (a) waste their time memorizing the exact url or (b) are running windows, and so can see the pull-down menus from the top nav bar (example sections like "women for gore" and "students for gore"). I also run Netscape 4.7 on a Unix machine, where these sections are similarly inaccessible. I've done some work in web design, and this kind of inaccessibility is unexcusable!!! If you want a laugh, check out the open source section of Gore's page -- he invites you to "Take a look at our source code" (as if any idiot could'nt view source with a browser). The kicker to this is that I actually volunteered to do some work on the web site and Ben Green had to send me the source code files that I was going to be working from -- because some of thier code is dynamically generated, and the code which does this generation is inaccessible to the "view source" browser option (which is the only way the site gives you to examine the source code). So basically, no one at the Gore campaign even knows what open source is!!! Gore's technical incompetance (combined with his flip-flop on abortion) have convinced me to vote for Bradley when my state's primary occurs in a few weeks.
Besides being boring, the Al Gore website has several other serious flaws. 1)It is hideously incompatible with anything but Windows. I run Netscape 4.7 on a Mac (os9) and cannot view large portions of the site (such as the "Women for Gore" and "Students for Gore" sections) because they are only accessible through the exact urls (which I don't know, if I can't get there) or through pull-down menus which only work on Windows implemenations. The same problem occurs when I run Netscape 4.7 on a Unix machine. Having previously been involved in web design, I feel like I can say with cetainty that this type of incompatibility -- especially on a public outreach site! -- is absolutely inexcusable. 2)If you want a laugh, go check out the "open source" appeal on the site. The text invites you to "Take a look at our source code", which is a very silly idea -- what idiot can't hit view source in their browser?. The kicker is that I actually did some work for this web site, and Ben Green mailed me the files I'd be working from -- the reason he gave me was that much of the code for the Gore site is dynamically generated, and the code which generates this dynamic part isn't accesible through the view source browser option. So the site isn't actually open source at all!! Just another example of policiticians who don't know what they're talking about but think they can get somewhere by pretending they do. Don't vote for Al Gore -- he pretends to know what open source is but doesn't actually have a clue!!
"...we will maintain the current levels of support for our National Offense forces and encourage the growth of efficieny through the adoption of on-line intranet technologies to eliminate waste and mismanagement..."Reuters, AP
So this is not inconsistent with his later statements in Nowhere, Ohio. I suggest that the poster himself has been host on his own petard - the availability of information on the net!
what pisses me off is how some jerk moderator can mark a post down as overrated or underrated, meaning they give not a single reason why theyre marking it so, AND theyre not held accountable in meta-moderation... now thats a problem.
lemme guess:
http://www.algore2000.com/winholee.htm/illegalcont ributions.htm/backdoordonors.htm
gore uses Microsoft IIS also, not apache
Note that he could veto a bill that brought taxes to the internet (in at least a limited manner)
WHO INVENTED THE GODDAM INTERNET????
How the hell do you get +3 Troll?
Other folks to interview: Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, the couple behind the centrist grass-roots online Censure and Move On anti-impeachment campaign. This was back in late 1998, and they thought it through better than anyone else I've seen.
Thanks IMHO to a very well-organized and easy-to-use site, they pulled in half a million petition signatures (100,000 in the first week and 250,000 in the first three weeks). The home page was brief, simple, and unintimidating: you just had to enter name, email, zipcode, and a one-line comment about the situation. You could click for a scrolling display of other signers and their comments, or for background info etc. The sensible privacy policy was right there for you to see.
Unless you unchecked the box, filling out this information not only signed the petition but also generated an email to your Congressperson (keyed on the zipcode).
So you were mad and it was easy to fill out the little form to express that. Then they'd snagged you, and their follow-through was especially good. You were given a little more info and asked to click again to register as a local volunteer or spokesperson, or to automatically email your friends about the site. And they emailed you periodic action alerts when it was time to phone Congress before a crucial vote.
They really translated this into offline support. They got over 5,000 volunteers for the offline campaign. They also got time & money pledges from 30,000 individuals to work against the impeachers in 2000, for a total of $13 million and 750,000 hours pledged. To put it another way, 6% of signers agreed to contribute time or money ...
They have subsequently leveraged their email list for other issues where they think the US Congress is out of touch with the citizenry, like gun safety.
(Note: I am not affiliated with them except for having signed their petition.)
I will deign to hitch a ride on Mr. Sims's posting; I will be an Anonymous Coward not only because I don't have a Slashdot account, but because in this instance I truly want to be anonymous.
A couple of years ago, Matt Drudge gleefully jumped on the fact that the domain gore2000.org had been registered before the 1996 New Hampshire primaries had been registered by "Friends of Al Gore" even before the 1996 New Hampshire primaries, had at least one registration renewal, had its billing address as the White House, the phone number listed as Billing Contact in InterNIC records was indeed the Office of the Counsel to the Vice President, the Administrative contact in InterNIC's records was a Deloitte and Touche office in Hermitage, TN (Al Gore's home town), and "Friends of Al Gore" was listed in the Federal Election Commission's database as an active Political Action Committee.
This wouldn't amount to more than precluding a prankster from reserving gore2000.org before the campaign could (total cost: $100 domain registration, plus cost of full-time internet connection for 2 years), but it still appeared to be a case of government resources (the Office of the Counsel to the Vice President) being used in the service of a PAC--clear violation of election laws.
After Sam Donaldson brought up the story in a White House press briefing (Mike McCurry refused to answer any questions on the matter), the billing address for gore2000.org was subsequently moved to a cemetary in Denver.
(Now to the question...) Assuming that the person responsible for the gore2000.org gaffe was a complete idiot, how do you go about educating over-eager campaign staff about what sort of information is available on public databases about their activities?
you can't post if you moderate. don't provoke stupidity
Al Gore is about as exciting as dryer lint. Al Gore is boooring. Even the Simpsons attests to this (The Al Gore doll, Lisa buys that says "You... are hearing me talk." when Lisa pulls the string.)
Algore2000 is a good site. I'm sure there was countless hours of thought put into each and every detail, especially the "agenda" page. That page in particular is a work of persuasive art, right down to the picture of Al with a pair of cops (tough on crime), and the (over)use of red, white and blue. The list of catch phrases is an especially nice touch; who could possibly NOT support "Saving Our Schools," "Fighting for America's Seniors" and "Improving Health Care," right?
My question for you, sir, has to be this: Why does algore2000.com seem to think I'm a fool? Am I supposed to be genuinely impressed by the load of press releases and speaches? I hate to break the news to you, but I want to see real content, NOT glazed over executive summaries. Take for instance something VERY relevant to me as a college student - the link from the front page about Al's Plan to Make College More Affordable. It leads here. The extent of the "details" stated is this:
"Gore announced new details of his National Tuition Savings Program, which is designed to help families save for college. The plan allows families to invest funds in an account where their money will be protected from inflation and can be withdrawn to pay for higher education expenses tax-free. The plan will also guarantee the cost of college tuition at any participating college or university in the country."
The rest of the press release is all fluff. No mention of whether this is limited to public or private universities, 2 or 4 year degrees, graduate school, part or full time study, etc. And this is the *basic* stuff. I'm also interested in why this would be a better option than, say, investing in short-term CD's.
That's just ONE example from the many I could have chosen. Nearly all the "content" of algore2000.com is fluff. And shots at Bill Bradley. The simple fact is this does not impress me. Actually, since this site represents Al Gore, I'm inclined to believe Al relatively clueless - if he wasn't, surely he'd tell us HOW he plans to fund his proposed programs, tax cuts, etc. Any politician can CLAIM to support any number of things. Algore2000 picks popular issues, and loads the wording of them such that ANYONE would be nearly forced to agree. Come on, who on earth DOESN'T support "A better educational system?"
What I could like to see from algore2000.com, as well as EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE is DETAILS. I want to know HOW you plan to provide a tax cut - will this come at the expense of the defense budget? Money always comes from somewhere; I want to know what has to be CUT to lower taxes. And don't tell me "unnecessary pork" or some trite answer. I want to see numbers.
And I want a big ass chart, with a column for every candidate, and a row for every issue. "Do you support abortion as it currently stands? y/n" "Do you support the abolition of legal abortion under all circumstances? y/n" "Do you support abortion under limited circumstances? If so, when?" Things like that. REAL questions. Some more: "Do you support the reverse engineering of software for porting and compatibility purposes?" "Do you support CDA in its current form?" And more of the like. I don't want to read "Al Gore supports technology and innovation" - I want to read HOW he supports them.
Simply put, algore2000.com seems to play to the lowest common denominator - the average american, who sadly enough has little interest in politics, and little technical knowledge. I think this is a mistake; this audience doesn't read political advocacy web sites on a wide basis. You'd do better to use the web site to provide details and elaborate on Al's statements and ideas rather than just rehash them.
One more side note: I followed Jesse Ventura's campaign slightly - I don't know his stance on most of the issues. I dont live in Minnesota, so I didn't take the time to research him. What I DO know is that I was very impressed when a reporter asked him if he supported some obscure bill I'd never heard of. Ventura replied something like "Well, to be honest, I'm not familiar with that at all. I'm not gonna lie to you; I don't know everything, or have all the answers you wanna hear. But I learn fast; I'll read up on it." When can we expect Al Gore to say something like THAT?
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
Ben, last we spoke, you were looking for some high-end servers to handle the Gore2000 mailing list. I was just curious as to what kind of solution you went with and what your experiences have been with it.
Douglas from min.net
Labeling/rating whatever is basically stamping something so someone who wants to censor it can. It's not censorship. It enables censorship, but it is not censorship. In this country anyone is free to go buy music as long as someone is willing to sell it. Someone else does the censorship.
I'm not from the USA, so don't kill me if I'm wrong here: but isn't it against your constitution for the goverment to censor? If so, is it not an end run around the constitution to have government enforced labelling in the full knowledge that many private companies (e.g. Walmart) will censor the music with "bad" labels?
What was Mr. Gore's involvement with ARPANet and MILNet? Also, does Bob Metcalfe know about this?
(for those who don't know, Bob Metcalfe also invented ethernet. Although lately, I think he might have really invented ether...)
Okay, okay, serious question. What is Mr. Gore's stance on cryptography now that the US has lessened their regulations on it? Does he consider the Clipper chip to be a mistake, and is he still in favor of that ridiculous key-escrow idea?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
No, and I don't think my post was *completely* off-topic. It's probably about as on-topic as a question like that will ever get on slashdot. Besides, I didn't find that narrow little topic to be too terribly interesting. :)
I'm not trying to be pro/con Gore, he's probably my favorite out of a whole bunch of rotten choices. But I still probably won't vote. If I did vote, it would be because he answered those questions correctly.
The only thing more dangerous than a technologically clueless president is a president who only thinks he has a clue...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
John McCain has raised a lot of money off his website from individual contributors giving small amounts. In fact in just the few days following the New Hampshire primary he raised over $2 million.
:)
How much(if anything) have you raised online, and has it been an important source of revenue for your campaign?
BTW, try to talk Gore into having one of these interviews
Hey, I'd really like to know who moderated my post down and why they did it. That post was not a Troll at all, and I can't believe anyone would think it was.
sigs are a waste of space
What sort of books have you used as a touchstone for shaping your web site?
There's a lot of material out there, and a lot of experts, but who do you think really provided you with good advice on how to put together your website?
sigs are a waste of space
Salon has an article on political web sites.
sigs are a waste of space
Most of the political web sites I've seen out there are what I refer to in the web development industry as "brochure sites". They tend not to be terribly interactive, and mostly serve as an online brochure.
What can you do with a political site that really enhances your ability to get the message out there?
sigs are a waste of space
--
This is an essential issue!
Yes he did invent the Internet and he also, not known to many people, invented programming, by inventing the algorithm! Yes he did!
Al Gore - I loves you man!
Did you miss the special request that questions be related to using the Internet as a political tool in general, and not pro/con Gore?
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
How do you keep in touch with the various communities on the net and what has the "Open Source" issue taught you in this regard?
Do you feel intimidated being the head web-honcho for the man who invented the internet?
--[shangodee]
How do you balance a visually interesting site for the main public and people with disabilities (a politician can't be perceived as ignoring the disabled?)
--
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
Disk space is cheap.
Will somebody maintain the site up after the election, even as a frozen site?
It will be valuable for historians (and electors who would check the promises).
--
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
Of course! Being interviewed in Slashdot is a way to bring a lot of traffic two times, during the questions and after the answers.
--
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
Bobby Accesibility check of the first page of the site.
--
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
George Lucas made four films about something similar.
--
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
How will you deal with the fact that there are more languages spoken in the US beyond English?
If you translate something, how much and to which languages?
--
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
Linking to another sites is an essential feature of the Web.
:), supported campaigns)?
Would you recommend linking to another sites from your boss' site?
If yes, what kind of sites (supporters, other candidates, ~independent~ media, Slashdot
Would you object to being linked from another sites, even from opponents?
--
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
6. Uses PHP
7. Uses MySQL
'Nature's got a way, brothers, of scraping the bowl'
http://www.netcraft.com/whats/?host=www.algore2000 .com .... sez Apache 1.3.9 w/ PHP.
'Nature's got a way, brothers, of scraping the bowl'
They used to run IIS along with ASP. Couldn't keep up with the load and around the turn of the year they switched (partially on my recommendation) to Apache/PHP.
'Nature's got a way, brothers, of scraping the bowl'
Again, I'm in the know on this one and I was talking to Ben about switching to Apache many, many months ago. The reason for switching was simple: IIS/ASP couldn't keep up with the load. The decision to use Linux/PHP was mostly based on the fact that it could keep up with the load.
'Nature's got a way, brothers, of scraping the bowl'
How do the support volunteers that use the Internet compare to those that have been traditionally involved? Are they more active, or more talk and less action?
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
Was it your idea to claim that algore2000.com web site is "Open Source"? Do you even understand what Open Source means, or did you just decide to put yet another buzz word on the site, along with "information superhighway", which Al Gore likes to use so often?
Also, who came up with the idea that Al Gore invented the internet? Was it you or Al Gore himself?
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
There's not a single question moderated in this article. In fact, I looked in other articles and found the same thing. Can anybody give more details about this?
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Through nmap and telnet, I can see that that algore2000.com uses Linux and Apache. Al Gore has been known to assimilate buzzwords and jargon in a big way (MIT seems to have had his number during commencement on this one). For example, several months ago I recieved a mail from the site claiming it was now "Open Source" when in reality it was nothing of the such and the term wasn't even remotely applicable to anything on the site. How much of your decision to go with Linux/Apache came out of practicality, and how much of it came because they are the trendy things to be running?
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Something that I've seen missing from all of the candidate's web sites is their policy on the internet. How can you campaign on the internet and not discuss the issues pertaining to the very media you're putting your ideas out on? My previous impressions of Gore have been that his policies on the internet are not very similar to that of the internet populace.
Also, on a note about Gore, how can the internet populace vote for a candidate who is pro-censorship? What effect would Tipper Gore (former member of the PMRC) have on the White ouse?
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
What factors were involved in the decision to call your web site "open source"? Do you really, truly embrace the open source movement, or was this just a chance to throw out a hot "buzz word" to a computer savvy audience?
The Internet is made for conveying information in detail. For example, I should be able to go to the site, click a link labeled "Social Security", and read why Al Gore thinks that the overwhelmingly young American Internet audience should support that system that confiscates 1-1/2 months per year of our labor in payroll taxes and, if Gore and his Democrat pals get their way, several weeks of additional labor in federal income taxes (those $trillions of "surplus" dollars). The soundbite crap on the site is useless.
On a more Internet-relavent note, the FEC wants to regulate political speech on the Internet (see th is CNN story). Doesn't this create a hostile environment for non-official candidate web sites? Isn't this a blatent violation of the First Amendment (intended to protect political speech)? What is your view on such web sites?
What factors were involved in choosing slashdot as a forum for a discussion/interview about internet campaigning and voting techniques? Was it an entirely technical motovation, based on the idea that us of the technical persuasion in the audience might have insight on whether or not we felt it was a reasonable and rational approach to campaigning and/or perhaps even voting on the Internet? (IMHO, Jesse Ventura has ALREADY done an excellent job of answering the feasability issue.) Or are there political motivations behind this interview, where which in your anwers the audience will be showered with many pro-Gore-thinks-this-internet-thingy-is-cool-isms and turn out not to truly be of much insight about the technical/social issues that the Slashdot Audience is likely to be far more interested in?
In case it is perhaps the former, wouldn't it have made more sense to have put this under the Ask Slashdot category, and have assumed that the Slashdot Audience's input on the matter is actually -more- important that the Gore Campaign Camp's opinions on Gore or Gore's approach to campaigning on the internet?
In the case of the latter, does it occur to your that the majority of the people you are reaching in the Slashdot Audience are bound to see this as an unfair, lopsided approach to a campaign? One which is merely a transparent attempt to gain sympathy or support for a candidate we trust as far as any single one of us can throw the Empire State Building (And no, the other partys aren't worth trusting either)? It stands to reason that if the "Democrats" are here waving their flag all over our nice generally technical forum (a forum that inherently resents contemporary (American) politics in the FIRST place) that, for the sake of fairness, All other candidates Campaign Managers (or whoever you are) should be interviewed here as well.. or at the least your candidate's biggest opponent.
And finally, on the astronomically off chance that this ? gets posted in the interview, my apologies to Jon Katz (who I've personally never met, but whose work I dislike immensly) for generalizing the "Slashdot Audience"..
=)
mprov
US$0.02++
My point is, I've seen very few politicians (one or two on the local level) that understand this and can use it to their advantage. As one poster above mentioned, most campaign sites are like mere brochures. If a candidate is to gain respect online, s/he needs to respond to the audience. This could be as simple as maintaining a real FAQ, or it could take the form of an online forum for discussion of issues, perhaps using a format like Slashdot. Al Gore would have suffered much less online damage if, after his "Internet" statement, he'd posted an online apology explaining what on earth he'd been thinking, and acknowledging the people who really deserve credit for the Internet.
So... my questions are: Have you thought about this? If so, what are your thoughts? What are your plans in this area? How long will it take before politicians use the Internet to become more in touch with their constituency?
But maybe a better way to do this would be to contact the web people of all the major campaigns and do a 'how did each respond' type of interview.
In lieu of the 'Al Gore Invented the Internet' problems and rancor, it may make for a more rounded interview and more intelligent questions being asked...
jf
If you are going to mess with politics you either need to represent all parties, or you declare your loyalties.
/. crew is biased, and on top of that lying about it.
I haven't heard anything about anyone else other than Gore, so it's *very* apparent that the
"God prevent we should ever be twenty years without a revolution." -- Thomas Jefferson
The question should be, why did they change from NT and IIS to Linux and Apache? A year ago they were on NT and IIS.
--fatboy
In an increasingly wired society rumors and myths propagate at incredible speeds - how do you diffuse rumors and myths. For example, if I start a rumor that Mr. Gore said he "fathered linus torvalds" - how do you diffuse that? Rumors and myths often come about as a minor distortion of the truth which then goes through the "telephone game". How do you keep the public informed about what a candidate /really/ thinks, as opposed to what other people think the candidate thinks?
How succesful has appealing to netizens for help with the gore200 web site been? How many non-gore staffers are currently involved and what unforseen challenges have running the web site this what posed?
You'd be on +4, possibly interesting, possibly informative. Then someone trolls you and yo go down one abnd become troll because that's what you were last rated as.
I used to think moderation was defensible. But they need to develop a new system in the slashdot r&d labs quam celerime.
Believe with me, my saplings.
Is it censorship that Microsoft won't let OEM's dual-boot BeOS on
systems that have Windows preloaded?</i><br>
<br>
It's a misuse of the work censorship... but yes, I think it is. It's the same in spirit.
Believe with me, my saplings.
Call me stupid... but what's the significance of the PMRC?
Believe with me, my saplings.
I'm an Australian with an interest in the web meets politics. Obviously, when designing a webpage, it is much easier to put on it stuff you want people to see than the stuff they want to see. But because it isn't a projected media, to have any impact at all, you have to give people what they want to see. This is frequently very little glitz and lots of certain types of content. When I go to a site, I want to know what electorate I am in, who my candidates are, neat summaries of them, ways to find out more about them (or the 'good' ones according to that site at any rate), links to other parties (seriously), policy positions, and papers they've written on things issues concerning them. How do you coordinate finding out what people want to see? Do you have focus groups, or are the design team just a bunch of savvy people? (Of course the third option is that you fail, but I can't see you owning up to this :) )
Believe with me, my saplings.
Most political campaigning, like most advertising, involves a one-way flow of information- the candidate makes statements, gives soundbites, and buys advertisements, and the only way the individual can communicate back is by voting, or writing a letter which will be immediately filed away and ignored by campaign staffers. Such is the nature of mass-media- TV, newspapers, and radio do not facilitate 2-way communication. One of the consequences of this is the public's widespread disinterest in and apathy about politics, because they see no connection between themselves and those who represent them, and no way of truly having a voice.
The internet provides an incredible opportuinty to fundamentally change this dynamic. I feel like I know in some way and am communicating with internet celebrities such as CmdrTaco and Bruce Perens simply by participating in Slashdot. In this community, unlike in national politics, I believe I have a voice, however small it may be. My question is, can the internet bring this sort of connection to politics? How can you, and how are you, leveraging the unique two-way nature of internet media? Can the internet become a conduit for true communication between a politician and those he represents, or will we just see more TV ads and sound bites in HTML format?
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
Your job is to get as much eyeballs to your site in order to influence something offline. Do you think it is possible for an online community to do the opposite and gain enough offline clout to successful lobby for, say, an amendment to or abolition of, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act? So how can the Open Source community use the Internet best as a political tool?
I have serious doubts that it can be used as political tool because I think politicians do not take the Net seriously. What is your view on this?
(Please, no campaign speeches, I don't get to vote anyway.)
Remmelt de Haan,
the Netherlands
Maybe the moderators just don't care about political issues. Of course, if this were Ask Slashdot, and the question was "Which window manager does Tom Christianson like best?" we'd see moderation points really flying.
If a web site brought in little or no money, could a candidate still view it as successful, or is income the final measure of success?
It is questionable if he had to legally answer such questions about his personal life.
There's no question as to whether or not he had to answer. He was NOT allowed to lie, personal life or not.
It is a valid line of questioning to establish a pattern of behavior, as it relates to persuing a sexual relationship with his underlings.
He was deposed for a CIVIL lawsuit. There is no 5th amendment protection.
The investigations primary purpose was to ruin him.
No, the reason he was deposed was for a CIVIL lawsuit for sexual harrassment. It was about getting money for Paula Jones. Not ruining anyone. His lying nearly ruined him.
I'd give that he has embarrassed his office, but there is absolutely no reason to throw him out of office besides a campaign by republicans to fuck the democrats over.
Not even the fact that he committed a felony? Mark Furhman can no longer be a police officer for committing the same crime during the OJ Simpson trial.
Because many republicans and democrats have done exactly what clinton did.
How many others in government have lied under oath?
Name some names. If you can.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Do you feel that the credibility of the candidate involved can have any adverse or positive influence on the way people view "internet campaigns"?
"I took the initiative in creating the internet." Is not something that we (around these parts) are likely to forget.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Do you use ssh or any other cryptographic tools on algore2000?
This is a travesty. Giving pulpit to this /.'s integrity these
democratic puppet shows
days.
I just have one question: how much did Gore's
campaign pay VAL to get this publicity?
...to put the 'secret message' in the HTML source? Was this for marketing, or just because it seemed like a nifty idea? Did you copy or were copied by Transmeta.com?
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Hacking into a site of "the father of the internet" would be seen as gaining major credit inside the site cracking community. How, in general terms, have you gone about addressing security issues for your site ?
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Jesse Ventura used the net very effectively to get elected. On his current web site, he keeps an archive of his campaign promises and you can check to see that he's keeping all those promises. I don't agree with some of the stuff he's done (then again, I don't live in Minnesota, so what I think doesn't really matter there) but he is one of the most honest and straightforward politicians I've ever seen.
Keeping a permanent record of campaigns on the internet is a great way to keep politicians honest.
http://www.jesseventura.org/
Reality has a liberal bias
Although it is new for a USA political party to be using the internet for campaigning, poltical groups on the internet is not new. In the UK for a couple of years the different potical parties have their own websites, so any Joe can surf over and read the latest on their party.
This makes me wonder how long term a political party's message is in the US - does it last beyond the campaign?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
What tools do you use to make a web site fitting for the inventor of the internet?
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Simply fascinating, from a simple mind, too.
end of line
Even if it's not required by law, IMO Slashdot should take the spirit of equal access into consideration and try to run comparable interviews with the other candidates' organizations, IF the results of this interview turn out to be a political statement (rather than something technical, or social commentary, or whatever that doesn't specifically flog the Algore message).
The Bush campaign, we'll recall, clearly had a net strategy early on. McCain is raking the net for money as we speak. The other campaigns clearly have also given their Internet presence a lot of thought and should be heard from.
Well, it wasn't me, and I don't feel that way, but if you feel hard done by (now that you're at 5) take a look at the very first post where "X", also asking about interactiveness, is still moderated as a Troll - beats me.
--Crush
I know that's a lot there but hopefully you can answer some of it.
Thanks
--Crush
actually, i was the moderater, and i was just fucking with you. *cheers*
me, it was me, muahahahahahahahahaha
What do you see in the way of the internet allowing for a greater pool of candidates to be heard from. Do you think the Republicrat 2 party system will be able to use the dollars to maintain the current lock on power or that other parties(ie-reform, etc) will be able to gain a larger voice because of the new universal medium? How do you think Al Gore and/or his web committee would feel about being part of (or sponsoring) some sort of site where ALL candidates were given equal treatment(ie, they're all asked the same questions, viewers can browse through). This is somewhat akin to allowing more than the 2 major parties at the debates...
Warning, ardent McCain supporter. :-)
During the course of the campaign, I've been following the GOP race and I have been struck by the ways the Internet has impacted these primary elections. Notably, I was impressed by the amount of money that poured into McCain's coffers following the New Hampshire landslide.
The impression that I am under is that McCain's current campaign would not be possible without his online presence. I saw a comment on a news site that said something along the lines that the Internet is changing campaign financing by bringing contributors to candidates, contrary to the meatspace norm of candidates chasing contributors. It seems to produce a system of "impulse contributing" where people get fired up about a candidate for X reason, and it is extremely easy contribute online via credit card. Indeed, McCain raised more money on a cyberspace event than in its meatspace equivalent in Washington!
As a webmaster for Mr. Gore, I am wondering how integral the Gore2000 website is to your campaign financing. Do you see the Internet style of "impulse contributing" ever overtaking the traditional means of contributing? Do you ever see this trend altering the way a candidate presents themselves by targeting themselves to the individual voter/contributer instead of the "big money" interests?
Hi all!
Interview questions are historically picked by the moderators - top X questions get submitted.
But, right now - and for a good few days - it just doesn't seem that there's any quantity of moderation points in the system. I mean, when did anyone last see a moderated post?
Something odd appears to have broken and normally this would only cause a real problem if +1s start trolling. But here it stops questions getting submitted by anyone other that +1s so what can we do?
Greg
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Extrans posting is broken. Dunno why, but if you want HTML you have to post as HTML formatted instead of Extrans.
:)
The lesson here is simple - always preview your pages, and you'll catch slashdot bugs more often
Greg
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
With the advent of algore2000, will we soon see Al Gore claiming to have Invented (or even to have re-invented) Political Campaigning on the Internet in much the same fashion he claimed to have invented the Internet?
Quack
"Due to the Tipper Gore's actions, tons of rap and other music has been pulled from chains such as Walmart and K-mart"
Okay, I don't totally disagree with you, and definatly think that her actions should raise a few flags of a certain color. However I would like to point out that it was a marketing decision made by Walmart/K-mart. No one forced it upon them. They simply figured it was in their best interests (money). I hate censorship, or shall I say, I hate government censorship. Governments should never be allowed to tell anyone what they can/can't read/hear/see/etc. However, citizens should be encouraged to censor things they don't like for their own benefits. Walmart doesn't sell your favorite rap groups CD? Easy answer: Find someplace that will. Demanding that places carry music that *you* like is a form of censorship in itself.
That said, I agree that Mrs. Tipper Gore is walking a *very* fine line. It's one thing to increase public awareness, however it's too easy to overstep those bounds once you have political influence and try to force those viewpoints on everyone (an opportunity she'd most certainly jump on if given the chance).
In short, Walmart/K-Mart has a *right* to pull the music. Until someone *mandates* they pull the music, I don't have a problem.
"But what happens when you live in the sticks and Wal-Mart comes to town? Statistically your little town turns into a feudal society where small business (eg. Record Stores, Hardware Stores, Book Stores, you name it) They will outprice the local music store until it shuts down and at that point you can't buy what you want."
:)
Yeah, I do see this as a problem, but a much larger one. You can't expect Wal-Mart to cater to each and every one of the populations needs. And, I'd be willing to bet that if the community (especially a small one) was really concerned about the "mom and pop" stores going out of business, then they should have petitioned the local government not to let a Wal-Mart to be built there. Yes, I've heard of plenty of stories were some citizens gripped but nothing was done. It's sad and unfortunate (I live in a *very* small town that's slowly losing it's mom and pop stores), but I don't blame the companies moving in. I blame mostly the citizens for their inaction.
Sorry if this post seems a bit inflamatory. But like I said, I live in a very small rural Iowa town (actually, I don't live in any town. We're out in the country, but the nearest town to us has a population of maybe 1,500 - 2,000. Most other towns in the area only have half a dozen or so). I find that if there's anything I need, either A) purchase it online (I have that luxary, I realize that many don't), or B) Travel to the nearest "big city", which I do frequently. Yes, it's a 50 mile trip (one way), but if I need something RIGHT NOW, that's what I have to do. That's life, you deal. I personally think the benefits of living in a small town far outweight the crap you have to put up with in a city. It's quiet, cleaner, safer, and.....geez, I really have gone off topic here
Moderators: do you actually think the guy being interviewed is gonna give a reasonable answer to such a hostile question?
You'd better find other questions posed by less rabid people.
Could using the internet eventually lead us away from a representative democracy and towards a Athenian style real democracy (everyone can debate and vote on every issue)? Sure, we've all seen it in a variety of sci-fi settings (and the obvious problems with it.) Is a real democracy workable ? Plato did not think so.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
Given that the internet allows users to seek out and verify information for themselves to a much greater extent than previously possible, will this affect the typical lying and obfuscation of political campaigns? That is, I can retrieve information about Gore's campaign and see that in Bumfucht, Idaho he promised a group of veterans that he would increase spending on national offense, while three days later in Nowhere, Ohio, he swore up and down to a local Rotary Club that he would eliminate wasteful military spending.
Will the increased access to information force politicians to actually have consistent stances, or will the politicians fail to wise up, treat everything as "business as usual", and continue alienating a large portion of the population through pervasive pandering, mushy beliefs that depend on who they're talking to, and outright lies?
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Taking into consideration that many of the readers of this forum are voters and pro-open-source (to put it carefully ;-)) the answer will probably be accordingly.
I don't think that was the reason, but it is an interesting question nonetheless (and certainly not flamebait; moderators, please give the original posting an 'underrated' or 'interesting').
I just wanted to point out that we should take all answers of this person with a grain of salt.
More clueless moderation...
I was hoping to find out whether the open-source community was considered significantly large or influential enough to be the reason for the change.
According to netcraft, algore2000 is running Linux and Apache. What were the reasons for choosing that platform, and were they mainly technical, or political? Was this your initial choice, or did you change the platform at some point?
When I worked in the big non-profit world, I encountered a problem which may be familiar to you. Whenever the boss talked to somebody, his job was to convey the message "We understand each other." This is harmless enough, but in his enthusiasm the boss often morphed this into "We're in the same business, we think exactly alike, for practical purposes we're one and the same person." I had a lot of "my geek will call your geek" meetings in which the technical people sat around wondering why the hell we were supposed to be talking to each other.
Which brings me to my question. Is there a lot of pressure to make the Vice President look more Internet and tech-savvy than he is, or even needs to be?
Maybe its Ok for a guy who's been living in that mansion at the USNO not to know what a laser scanner is. I for one never suffered from the delusion that George Bush ever ran out for a loaf of bread at the lock Kwik-e-mart while he was VP. Likewise, I don't expect that the vice president has ever slapped eyeballs on slashdot. Maybe the Internet candidate doesn't have to drop terms like "open source" (;-) if he can show he understands and supports values like freedom of expression that netizens cherish.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
There's exactly one thing Al Gore could do to wrench my vote away from Bill Bradley, and that's to submit a patch to the Linux kernel and get Linus to accept it. C'mon Al: you invented the internet, so now do something to improve the computers that power the internet in the Twenty First Century (tm). Give our children (WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN???) something to hope for, something that will our nation proud again, proud of our bounty and proud of our freedom (GNU!).
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Why not do what everyone else is doing and leverage the power of the web to make money by....: going IPO! Sell shares in your future potential presidency, and rake in the dough. While you might not actually ever get elected president, companies like Amazon.com might not ever make any money either, and just look at their stock prices. With the IPO revenue, the candidate can effectively smother the competition with expensive far-reaching vote-gathering advertising, and once in office, the stockholding lobbyists can get cabinet positions and dictate executive policy. Sure it violates FEC rules, but existing IPOs are essentially Ponzi schemes and flout the mandate of the FTC, and what's the difference between those TLAs, anyway?
Hey, it's not so different from existing candidates' policies: y'know, this would be a perfect spot for another Texas baseball stadium!
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Slashdot is not affected by equal access laws if I understand it correctly.
I believe equal access only affects broadcast media. It is part of the FCC licensing process because the broadcast spectrum is considered a public good that is leased to private entities. Newspapers are not governed by equal access laws.
Therefore, the question becomes whether the Internet follows broadcast or print precedents. My guess is that it would follow print. The real tricky questions would come if they interviewed Gore on Geeks in Space. Does internet radio follow radio law? Hmm...
I'm by no means a campaign law expert, but I've been field director on a congressional campaign and became quite well versed with all the laws [when people decided to follow them].
It seems like the media has focused solely on the effect of the Internet on candidates' ability to communicate to voters. It reminds me of the media fascination with e-commerce and it's dealings with the consumer. E-commerce is important, but it ignores a large market of business to business commerce. It is only recently that the media has started to cover business to business commerce.
I think the same thing may be occuring regarding candidates' use of the Internet. I worked as a field director for a political campaign. We had a web site to communicate with voters, but it was not where the Internet had the largest impact on our campaign. The largest impact came behind the scenes.
Therefore, here are my questions:
How are you using the Internet to facililate communication between staff members, volunteers, etc?
How has the Internet affected your targeting efforts or GOTV efforts (Get out the Vote)? Do precincts still make the best indicator of a geographical area to target for GOTV efforts or have your databases allowed to target people more specifically?
Have you seen any parallels between the type of communication that happens in a vote-by-mail or absentee GOTV effort and your Internet efforts?
How is your voter database maintained? Do you share information with Congressional campaigns as well as the National Democratic Party? [When I was working on our campaign, the Dems didn't share any data.]
How has the Internet changed the media monitoring, opponent research, etc.?
Finally, do you believe that the relationship between voters and candidates through the Internet has been the bigger impact on campaigns or is it the behind the scenes efficiencies and communication that has had the larger impact?
Thanks.
Are you planning on buying 'banner-space' to advertise the site? While I had supposed that the candidates may create sites, I was not aware which (if any) had,.. nor the addresses. Frankly, even now, I doubt there's anything useful to be found on them. I can see the potential for such sites, especially if they featured writings by the candidate(s) on different subjects, explaining their stance, and detailed reform policies.
Also if you really want traffic and to win people over, I highly suggest a large quantity of photos of the Gore daughters,.. especially on vacation somewhere with beaches -- oi vey!
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
That's my main question, here are some points to ponder:
It seems that having a website as large and significant to the campaign as Gore's or most of the others would tend to force them to be more responsible, to be held more accountable for each and every utterance. In a world where disinformation and twisting of facts is commonplace in the popular media, how does a website like yours influence the candidates` ability to take advantage of this?
Are Gore or any of the others more or less likely to refer back to their campaign managers and website before making statements about policy and moral issues? Or is it just as easy to perform an "about face" because the website can be updated just as quickly? Can campaigners now say "please see the FOO section of my website" instead of answering questions about specific issues?
Disclaimers: :)
/. offer to show anyone who creates an account and sends me the number a small e-metal spend to show how the system works, just email me your account number and PLEASE remember your passphrase.
1. I'm not a very political person anymore, and even back when I was I wouldn't have been much interested in Al Gore (or any Republicans).
2. I don't speak for my company, this is just me being curious.
3. This might be a better question to ask of the FEC than of you, keeping in mind that what backs certain alternative currencies might fluctuate in dollar value over time and that political contribution limits are denominated in dollars.
4. Right now, no alternative web currency, including ours, stores enough value to be of much interest to a political campaign, anyway.
5. I probably seem self-interested in posting this, so moderate me down -- see if I care.
How do you feel about the idea of accepting instantly settled payments of an alternative currency, say one denominated in grams of Au, Ag, Pt, or Pd? Note: we have account holders all over the world, and this brings up questions of identity-verification (just spend back to suspicious accounts, I guess) but those questions come up with the current system when a campaign encounters, for example, suspiciously-wealthy Buddhist monks. Do you think this is a possibility for the future.
I'll include my standard
Anyway, I look forward to your answer. Thanks.
JMR
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
Agreed, and here's another one to consider for attention. If I want dirt on a candidate, ANY candidate :^) it's where I go first.
Yes, they have a Gore section, but they don't spare anybody over at the Skeleton Closet. (I have nothing to do with them, I speak only for myself.)
JMR
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
A couple of months ago I remember reading an article saying that you had bought many "bad-publicity" domain-names like http://www.algoresucks.com and likewise addresses and that you had them all linked to the Gore-campaign website. When I re-checked today the pages didn't link anymore. Why did you decide to un-link the pages??
It seems that the ruling class is hoping for the Internet to become a cheaper form of television: strictly one-way media. A classic indicator of this is that Bush and Gore have run spam campaigns and McCain (as committee chair) pulled a midnight sneaky to get prospam legislation through the Senate.
Why is is so hard for our Lords and Masters to understand that the Internet isn't television? Wiil it take the 1960 debates all over again?
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Hi, I am from Italy and in the general elections of 1996 I was in charge with running the website for the coalition than ended up winning. Pretty basic stuff up then, but the most difficult task I faced was to provide in a coherent way a lot of different contents (or even sub-sites) provided by political allies that we could not dare to ignore.
My question is: is Al Gore's web service completely "centralized" and run from the main campaign organization or there are section assigned to supporters, groups, regional organizations, etc.? In the latter case, how do you manage to keep everything in synch?
"It is more complicated than you think" (The Eighth Networking Truth from RFC 1925)
Could we get an interview with Gore himself.
t ml
(actually 2-3 to get more of a conversation,
for example:
Us: Why do you say on your site http://www.algore2000.com/agenda/issue_technolo.h
That you are for educating children by using technology, and _on the same page_ you also want schools to hide information from them? How can you promote education with one hand and take it away with the other? Don't you trust the teachers and parents to guide our country's children anymore?
Gore: That's not what I meant.
Us: But that's what you said. Now, could you please, say what you really mean? Long answers are fine (we read JonKatz articles) as long as they are clear, consistant, and have real meaning.
-end example
It just seems to me that the people around here have a fairly high intelligence and a fairly low tolerance for being smoothtalked. I'm sure that having Gore don the official Slashdot Asbestos Underwear (tm) and actually converse with us would go a long way (heck, it might get us out of our chairs long enough to actually *gasp* vote!)
In building a political campaign web site for my brother who is running for a city council race, I find that the web site itself generates very little traffic. Even though we've placed his web site on all of the campaign materials (fliers, bumper stickers, hats, etc), and even though the web site is an easy to remember name, very few members of the community have hit his web site.
Do you see the web as an effective way for local candidates to get the message out? Or do you see the web more as a way to impress the local political "elite" and press in a region?
Further, given the nature of a presidential campaign (where the candidate's message is often "tuned" to a geographic area or interest group), do you tune the message on the web to fit all geographical regions? Or are you tuning the message to fit a sort of "Internet special interest group?"
Maybe ever since the web turned into one big commercial marketplace that no-one pays attention to RFC 1591 anymore?
The internet is just beginning to get popular and I get the impression that right now, it is not a major concern of most politicians. Do you think that websites are already an important part of this batch of candidates' campaign? If not, when will it be and why?
Broccolist
I've also noticed that italics have been appearing oddly once in a while on /. the last couple days. Instead of actually doing the italics, slash seems to be filtering all less than signs, and actually showing the Italic tag as <I> -- sometimes. I previewed this comment, and it seems to be doing it right.. is someone playing with the code? (-;
What marketing and advertising methods have you found most successful for promoting the website? We all know that banners are dying, and the creators have to become more creative to get people to even NOTICE the banners. Is old media (television, print -- Newspapers, magazines, billboards etc., radio.) the backend to the website's marketing campaign, or have you found innovative ways to make online promotion work?
I am not normally one to followup my own posts, or question the moderation...
But in this case... I am totally stumped why this one would be considered offtopic? I know the moderator cannot respond, but maybe someone else who feels this way?
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
I am not sure that your suggestion would be completely in the interests of the political candidate - these guys want to be all things to all people, and often that means keeping hush hush about some of the opinions they hold or may have had in the past. This would be more appropriate functionality for an independant politics website.
If one politician starts presenting the facts in that manner, then it could really hurt if the others don't do it. When one says "I've always been for so-and-so", and then can list every vote she's been in, and prove she's been for it, that could be a big help, especially against the "I've always been for it - but been voting against it" type people.
And honestly, I'd much rather see a politican that will admit their past and deal with it instead of hiding it.
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
The current political candidate sites seem to be little more than political rhetoric and volunteer information. Are there any plans to treat the website differently than a brodcast medium? I mean, including interactivity, such as message areas for open discussions, polling booths to get a feel for what people are really interested in. And also perhaps for offering large amounts of data about a candidate's past actions in government, such as voting records (and perhaps reasons for the vote).
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
Too bad this wasn't combined with the question about "brochure" sites. What's the point of setting up a site that's little more than the mass-audience handouts/ads when the viewers/readers are people who specifically came looking for info?
Intolerant people should be shot.
Given that the Internet works via a passive model wherein a user must request information,
how do you intend to reach the majority of people who don't request AlGore2000 info?
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
There are two main objectives to political campaigning: expanding your political base, and changing voter participation. The net simply adds one more dimension to the media tools available to political candidates.
/.) to feel politically disenfranchised, and, well, if you don't think your vote means squat, you're probably not going to make the effort to vote, right? Just remember that you're playing right into the Establishment's hands by doing so.
As Bill Clinton proved with his New Democrat politics, and Ronald Reagan with his Reagan Democrats, the easiest way to win general elections is to spread your appeal to disparate voter groups. The net becomes a way to get your message out, to get name recognition to thousands of voters without spending suitcases of cash on TV and radio sound bites (and all the problems that are associated with raising those suitcases). In the words of John McCain, the net becomes the "great equalizer", and while I'm pretty sure McCain doesn't exactly fit the profile of a power user, it's nice to see someone more "mainstream" at least notices the growing potential of the net as a political force.
The 2000 presidential race is a clear-cut example of a political fight to, on one side, expand voter participation, and on the other, to limit turnout. Negative campaigning, "good times" campaigning, and the politics of inevitability tend to suppress voter participation, which benefits one group in particular: the political Establishment. The Establishment (as defined by the hardcore elements/leadership of the political parties) is guaranteed an almost automatic 30-40% of the vote, plus the ability to rake in wads of cash for their candidate. When combatting insurrections against the Establishment, as Al Gore and George W. Bush are both doing to varying degrees of success, the easiest road to victory is to turn the moderates and independents (the main strength of rebellions) away from the ballot box. When the fanatics are all on your side, why give anybody else a reason to vote? Hence the negative attitude adopted by Gore, and the parading by Bush of his supposedly "invincible" $70 million political war chest. Conversely, the underdogs have a vested interest in getting as many voters to the ballot box as possible. McCain's biggest strength lies with his appeal to independents and Reagan Democrats, and his biggest challenge in the primaries is to convince them that their vote does mean something. And this is where the net comes in - a large chunk of netizens are moderate/independents, and populist campaigns would do well to reach out to them. A lot of the technologically franchised have a tendency (as seen here on
The point? Imagine the Slashdot effect transferred to elections. Get registered, get informed, and go rock the vote.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
On the subject of internet and political organization, I can think of a few others who might be better candidates for such interviews than Gore's internet guy.
For starters: Newt - or his internet guy. He was the first established politician to make serious use of the internet for political organization and campaigning. It was an underpinning of his contract-with-America push to obtain a congressional majority.
Next: The people who organized the grass-roots networks that took down some major political figures. Here are the organization names. (I can dig out contact info if there's interest)
Citizens Against Corruption: Organized (at least one of the two) grass-roots letter-to-every-voter-in-his-district campaigns that took out Roberti and Roos in California.
De-Foley-8: Organized a grass-roots campaign that took out Foley - the only time a sitting speaker of the house was taken down in an election.
These last two represent three successful kick-the-bastard-out campaigns organized entirely over the internet, powered primarily by members of one interest group (pro-gun), acting in retaliation against powerful political figures who had passed legislation against their interests.
Think how many more people might participate in campaigns against the authors of legislation goring internet oxen - such as censorship, crypto bans, nettapping, anti-reverse-engineering, etc.
Not to mention "campaign reform" laws designed to make such grass roots campaigns impossible.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Why is the website of a politcal campaign under the COM TLD, when it should have been registered under ORG?
The web can be a great resource for voters, but I worry that websites can also be great sources of misinformation and innuendo that mainstream media wouldn't propogate. How can you know whether websites such as Vote Smart or Go Vote can be trusted? For instance, those sites could be funded by special interest groups and give skewed or inaccurate information, and it would be difficult for average voters to know.
Further, I got several forwarded e-mail messages about Gore, which all turned out to be hoaxes, some saying that he'd misquoted the bible, others saying he'd been pro-life when he was young. Since it is in the Gore campaign's interest to refute the allegations, it was difficult to find trusted, authoritive refutation. How do you recommend voters find accurate, trusted, authoritative information on the Web outside of the candidates own websites (which are suspect)?
"There's so much left to know/ and I'm on the road to find out." -Cat Stevens
The internet has great potential for publication of statements, speeches and policies, while also allowing a far greater number of people to give political commentary. How would you view a trend of increased voter involvement, and how do you think it will affect the political process?
...Paid for by Gore 2000, Inc. ... and since we're at it,
summary: this is a comercial site. In the US, all politics is about money...Contributions to Gore 2000, Inc. are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes.
peace, Roland
Personally, I think that most candidates are talking out of their posterior during interviews and debates. The internet has helped me a great deal because sites such as selectsmart.com and others have listed each candidate's stance on various issues. Sort of a cut through the B.S. and get to the facts type thing that I love, allowing me to discount the "he sure is a swell guy" mentality.
However, many people do consider personality a very important quality when searching for candidates and I am curious as to how that might be conveyed over the internet. How have you dealt with this obvious difficulty in a media such as the internet?
If the website can survive the slashdot effect, then it's already pretty efficient. The slashdot post should also take care of "popular". And big... there are more important qualities of a website, such as interesting and useful.
--
The shareholder is always right.
(hoping the moderators aren't just saving up their points in order to do a few dozen negative moderations to the next moderator-questioning post)
--
The shareholder is always right.
One of the points I dislike the most is the fact that you see the "presidents want to be" (PWTB) talking their heads off on about anything but the actual political things they intend to do. To me the whole concept looks like something where a couple of men are competing in a race in which the one and only goal is to spend as much money as you can and most important; that you are being heard and seen. The message itself doesn't really matter; as long as people look out their window or switching on their tv and they immediatly get to see you telling them to vote for you.
But why should you vote for a certain person? I've seen some reports on CNN and local news programs in which such a PWTB was asked for some opinions. For example on the relationship with Europe. "Its very important", the man said. When the reporter asked why it was so important to him the PWTB gave a very vague answer (something like it is because its very important) and hurried back to the crowd, thus avoiding any other questions.
So to proof this idea of mine 'wrong' I took a look at this 'GoreSite' and focused on 1 small randomly picked detail:
Gore Details Plans To Make College More Affordable.
Here we can read how he discussed his plan (what plan?) and he announced new details (which details?) of his proposal. Then we see can read that he's a fighter for public education (duh).And now things get interesting... After clicking the 'more' button it first starts of with more of the same. Then we can read that, being vice president, Gore helped defeat efforts by Republicans in congress to elimintate the department of Education. Then we get to read what some of his opponents are doing wrong and what Gores plan and program can do.
Cheap talk!
Come on... Its very easy to tell the world what this fantastic plan of yours can do without telling how it works. And I really cannot believe that there are people actually believing in this cheap kind of propaganda. Here I just focused on 1 point but if you take a close look at the rest of the site you just see more of the above.
This article just focuses on Gore but I'm convinced the other candidates are just as bad. Correct me if you will but IMHO its all about the money. The only good part which I can see in campaining on the Internet is the fact that candidates with a smaller budget can also spread their ideas. This way the odds are kinda even.
(The Al Gore doll, Lisa buys that says "You... are hearing me talk." when Lisa pulls the string.)
It just looks too much like you want to be corrected to resist.
Martin Prince buys the doll.
and then everybody will get really happy about it.
He chose it, so he probably likes it.
Let's get some hardball questions about what's happening to our society and less shop talk. I bet you that people from here
In any case, let's rate this comment offtopic.
/willis
there is no thing
what else could you want?
This is not really a question, but a comment on this interview. I accept that in theory this interview is supposed to be about the process of using the Internet for a political campaign, but why do I have a feeling it will turn into a political speech? Something like:
Q: What do you think the impact of the Internet will be on future campaigns?
A: Al Gore is a huge believer in the power of the Internet, and intends to be a front runner in making sure everyone has access to this powerful bridge into the 21st century so that every citizen can have the benefit of directly reaching their candidate. [insert more hot air here]
Does anyone really think that the questions will not be run through 6 different P.R. people, each spinning it a little more toward Al Gore?
If my prediction turns out to be correct, I hope that Slashdot will give other candidates a shot. In fact, equal access laws may require it.
--
Although the question topics are focused on the Internet as a tool for campaigns, I wonder if you have any opinions on using the Internet, or computer networks in general, as a tool to replace the standard polling place? If you think this is the wave of the future, what do you see as the pros and cons?
How does it feel to work for the guy who claims that he invented the internet?
I'm still working on a clever footer.
Sir:
A few questions regarding publicizing on the Internet.
Number 1: I have noted that many campaigns which are posted on the internet, tend to avoid actually posting in-depth responses to issues, namely, on the Internet/Censorship.
We tend to overlook the fact that many canidates look at this situation, thinking that they can post what seems to be nothing more than a glorified banner ad in an arena which thrives off of knowledge, disclosure and the very trading of ideas.
it seems in many cases, canidates (Al gore is not the only one.) tend to simply post the propaganda that you can see watching TV, how do you make choices on what to post, where and when?
2: How much revenue do you actually generate from an online campaign such as this. Do you seem to be recieving many more donations, or is it pretty much the same.
3: Do you find that the internet is/is becoming a medium through which you can effictivly gain mindshare-time over and above 60 second infomercials?
4: The structure of the site seems to lack the ability for the end-user to properly interact. Take Slashdot for instance. Would it be feasible for you to set up an arena where the canidate could possibly respond, in person, questions posed to him/her. I know that in many ways, this in unfeasable. But even making the effort, tends to help public relations. Noting, of course, you will get alot of people who will abuse this syetm, to send nothing more than flames and insults, but, with the internet, you take the good and the bad, hand in hand, no?
/end rant
/end questioning.
I hope you all have a good day, and I look forward to hearing your responses.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- I am Jack's throbbing caffiene-withdrawal headache...
It's fairly obvious that you have been able to succesfully remote control the GoreBot 2000, can we look forward to seeing a GoreView WebCam anytime in the near future, or perhaps even a way that we can control his responses in debates over the internet? I like this idea of replacing political leaders with automata, keep up the good work.
Obviously the web site won't do much good unless you get a lot of people there. How do you plan on doing this? Ads on other internet sites (what kind of sites)? Mentioning the website on the televised commercials? Will there be any other networks that you "team" up with?
How do you think future campaigns will use the Internet? Will campaign websites continue to be merely tools to disseminate press releases and gather donations from the masses, or will they carry large amounts of substantive content, i.e. past speeches, opponents' voting records, etc.?
-- http://www.cerastes.org
I'm the webmaster for the campaign for Alexander Lipsey, who is a Democrat running for Michigan state representative (60th district).
There must be many people in my position--wanting to put up an excellent website to support an excellent candidate. But I've had trouble finding good resources for doing so--a kind of HOWTO for campaign websites.
Do you have any recommendations for good resources for creating campaign sites (in addition, of course, to viewing the source at algore2000.com).
What role do you see a candidate's web site as being, compared with other websites such as http://www.vote-smart.org/?
I've been to many of the presidential candidate web-sites and am usually not impressed with the depth of information as compared to nonpartisan web sites. Outside of background information, better written bio's, and other non critical information, I find no (useful) information on a candidate's web site. They never allow me to compare one person's views against another, nor do they usually back up their claims.
Do you think it's possible or reasonable to expect that a politician's web site will ever be anything more than a contrived attempt to persuade the general public? And if not, then why would any informed internet user go there when they can get (much) less biased (and useful) information elsewhere?
I know that I for the most part entirely ignore advertisements that I see on the internet. It's become a defense mechanism against the already prodigious amount of information I'm exposed to. So my question is this: Do you think the information on the Al Gore website, which is essentially an advertisement to the readers to vote for Gore, actually winds up influencing the reader, or does the reader simply block out the advertisement?
Today politics is all "push." That is, it is forced upon people. If you are to be voted upon you have to practically stick that voting lever into the voters hands and then tell them how to use it. There are multimillion dollar TV adds, garbage that litters vacant lots and fences, spreading the name of a particular candidate, and huge town-hall meetings where one person speaks to many many at a time. For the most part, this is the result of a candidate pressing his issues and ideals upon those who should choose their next leader.
Voting is water, and holds no value. Therefore, people do not seek it out. This explains low voter turnout and lack of interest in the political system.
Just imagine how that would radically change if voting in the United States was no longer a granted free right and instead a privilege. So many people would be pushing for the right to vote that it would make current voter turnout numbers appear as sickly as they really are.
Politics is like spam today. No wonder people tune it out. It is everywhere but where you want it, and not with the content that you desire. It is being shoved up my nose because you think that is the only way that I will ever perceive it.
The internet is a pull medium. I know what I want. I have to find out where to get it and how. Then I go and get it. I am not stupid. I will question everything before me. Second hand information will be treated like second hand information, which is almost valueless.
Will finally politics go for a pull distribution method, or are you going to continue shoving stuff up my nose thus offending me in the process?
Unfortunately most of America is still is a rather uneducated and lazy bunch, but there are a lot of us out here who you offend and turn off while trying to appeal to the other audience. When will you start providing real content, direct content, between me and my candidates?
Let's face it--most of the people who would look up a presidential campaign online are probably interested in "Geek Issues", which are not exactly inline with the standard Bi-party system arrangement (mostly libertarian, some business interests in there, empowerment of the masses, things like that)
Why not have the online stuff have information about the GI? Where does a candidate stand on capital gains? cryptography? intellectual property?
I see this huge demographic developing, and nobody is capitalizing on it. It would be so easy, since the net is our medium, how we interract with our society. There are more of us than you think.
I do what the voices on my console tell me to do.
It's a good bet that the portion of the American public that gets their political news primarily from online sources -- and more specifically, the portion that is actually likely to look at any candidate's website -- is not a completely representative cross-section of America. Does this affect, or can you imagine it affecting in the future, the messages you display on your website? Clearly the ideas you talk about on TV and the ideas you talk about on your site have to be basically the same, but do you make a conscious effort to tailor the way you convey those ideas to the population you're sampling via each medium? If not, can you imagine situations in which it might be greatly to your advantage to do so? Or severely detrimental?
Would you consider open sourcing the Gore 2000 campaign? There would be a message board on the Al Gore web site, accessible to any developer/contributor. They could address problems you might raise, such as "How to respond to the allegations that Gore does not understand the internal combustion engine." They could also create new lines of discussion, such as, "How to more effectively attack the Bradley health care campaign as a bloated mismanagement of public funds." The input of many brains thinking about the problems the Gore campaign faces may help solve those problems. So how about it?
I am not a lawyer.
I'd like to see a slashInterview on all the canidates to find out their stances on the future of the space program and NASA funding. This is a strong factor in my decision on who to vote for, and I havn't seen this issue addressed yet by any canidate.
Slashdot seems the perfect forum for this.
I think we should let the W3C decide the next president.
Lets got to the tale of the tape, Bold for good things, Italics for bad things.
There went my choice for President
Looks like Bradley is the man, but if you have another sugestion post below
Read my plan to save the Bengals
Do you think that smaller parties, other than Democrats and Republicans, will gain an advantage due to the internet, leveling the playing field a bit? It seems that the internet would allow parties taking advantage of the technology a way to spread their ideals like never before, such as the Libertarians, who the internet generally likes.
Is there any concern about Third Voice, which allows dissenting opinions, commentary, and spin dissection to be immediately tied to the web page?
Right now, it's debated that the whole campaign system boils down to candidates are selected on a basis of how much money the candidate puts forth in advertising. Since you have a unique view from the inside of the process at the moment, do you think there's going to be a day where the money isn't as important, because candidates will be pushed not only by thier online presences, but, also by the communities that grow arround those presences? And if so, do you think this is going to considerable change the style of candidate that becomes a part of the election process?
Davis Ray Sickmon, Jr - looking for something to read? Check out my three free novels at MidnightRyder.org
While it's easy to imagine the traditional campaign offices with the volunteers, how has moving partialy to online campaigning changed things where more people can become involved from greater distances?
Davis Ray Sickmon, Jr - looking for something to read? Check out my three free novels at MidnightRyder.org
The fact is, Gore has been misquoted deliberatley and repeatedly by the supporters of the right-wing, and cleverly too, as funny mis-quotes that make someone look stupid are bound to circulate endlessly on the internet until they are seen so often they become accepted as fact. Since the internet allows any uninformed pleb off the street to tell the world the latest gossip, populism rules over accuracy.
Heres an article which shows some of the facts behind these misquotes: http://www.consortiumnews.com/020100a.ht ml
Until recently the internet has been the tool of the underground grassroots political campaigner. It has been used effectively to gather support and create networks of information and disinformation. The current mainstream politics seems to be now using the medium more, do you think there is much you can learn from the experiences of grassroots campaigners on the internet?
Working for the (other) man
How long before online voting for elections becomes a reality and how will this change the way political websites are designed?
In previous Clinton/Gore campaigns we've heard alot about the "War Room". How have you tied the war room to the web site for this campaign? How do you anticipate this evolving over the next few months.
Why would I even waste time going to his website? Didn't he invent the internet? Anyone who lies as blatantly as he does shouldn't get a second of my time. Which brings me to my second thought. If a lawyer perjures himself, he usually gets disbarred. Clinton was fined $90,000 in the Paula Jones lawsuit for committing perjury. Shouldn't he have been disbarred?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Check out what this guy has to say on the subject, after all he should know.
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of "liberalism" they will adopt EVERY fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. (Former Socialist Presidential Candidate) - Norman Thomas
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Obviously, somebody interested in a candidate can go to their .com and learn more, but what efforts can be made to reach out to voters over the internet? Are there representatives visiting the websites of various organizations in a similar way that a campaign might visit a brick and mortar meeting place of a community?
.sig last updated Jan. 14, 2000
Clearly the Web is useful for raising money - candidates have raised millions of dollars online this year, to the point where the Web may seriously influence national American politics for the first time. (In fact, Mr. Gore's Democratic opponent, Mr. Bradley, has apparently raised more money over the Internet than in 45 states.)
But beyond the money, what do you see as the long-term effects of the Internet on politics? Do you, like Dick Morris, envision the Internet transforming into a forum for political reform, a place where citizens will "make their voices heard" directly, thereby diminishing the power of lobbyists and "entrenched interests"? Or will our political system simply transfer to the Web with a few adaptations to adjust to the faster speed of Web life? How will politics in the information age - I mean decades down the road, not months - be practiced differently than today?
A. Keiper ________________________
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Did a domain speculator get the name before Al Gore could assert his claim?
---
For Hire - but not cheap. I only do good work.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
My questions for Mr. Green are these:
1. Has your involvement on a technical level with the campaign "spilled over" in terms of knowledge to the politicos as to how our current technology works - i.e., limitations, unrealistic expectations, work and knowledge involved on your side in getting things done? Is this on a personal or organizational level? With who, in general (if anyone)?
2. How would you rate your involvement with the U.S. political process in general?
3. How would you recommend others get involved in "wiring" the U.S. political process on the local level? Are there pitfalls to watch out for? Liabilities? Is it better in your opinion to affiliate with candidates/officeholders, private organizations (such as League of Women Voters), or agencies (such as the Voter Registration office - automating valid registry verification, etc)?
4. What work, in your opinion, still needs to be done in order to improve the democratic process from a technical perspective in the U.S.? How would someone like me go about assessing the best place to start?
'Hail Eris, baby, hail Eris...pfffffffttt.' *cough* 'Yeah.'
You might want to check out http://www.vote-smart.org in regards to candidate responses to issues and their personal histories. Of course, both of the front running Democratic Party candidates refused to respond on requests for position information. Personally, I think a PNAT should be a requirement to file for a running.
I do not, however, know the background of the organization in detail. Take what they offer with a grain of salt.
As for the LCD of the U.S., please remember that the front running candidates have all uniformly shown that they are counting on demagoguery and fat bank-rolls to win their elections. Their lack of substance on their respective websites is a symptom of this problem.
However, it is my belief that Mr. Green just implements what the Gore political machine tells him to do. I personally am more interested in how to involve myself in the process on behalf of people I feel would better represent my interests (see other post this topic). His insights about pitfalls and benefits of this would interest me more.
'Hail Eris, baby, hail Eris...pfffffffttt.' *cough* 'Yeah.'
And once this person has been drawn to the site, what will he see? Lists of political promises no one believes? Nifty photos of baby-kissing and flesh-pressing? Chat rooms? Bulletin boards (such as this one here)?
Fairness and objectivity never won an election, so heavy moderation is clearly expected and even necessary, but where do you draw the line? Allow the tough questions and difficult discussions and you help your opposition; moderate too heavily and there's neither credibility nor interest. And what could such a forum offer that USENET and IRC don't already, and unmoderated, at that? Taken to its logical extension (extremes being the norm of American politics), in a short time any bulletin board would draw few other than trolls and opposition hacks.
Smaller political parties seem to have more to gain by demonstrating voting records and stirring up debate; the two majors just have more billboard space.
"A more rational government [is] one in which the will of the people should have... a moderating and salutary influence." --Thomas Jefferson
Do you find it intimidating working for the man who invented the internet? Do you ever get the feeling that no matter how great the site is, it'll never be "good enough" for Big Al, the orginal net nanny?
Does Al ever pull you aside and offer tips on server configuration or make suggestions regarding the graphic design of the site?
Oh, and does Mr. Gore keep a fifty-meter coil of Cat 5 in his ass, so he can pull some out, plug in, and check on his invention while on the road?
Thank you.
***
Bill Clinton should of done more political campaigning on the web...hmmm, wait..."BIG BILL'S HOUSE OF WHITE TRASH SLUTS" has already been done. Go AL! This is pathetic.
Does the sudden rash of DoS attacks and comprised systems have any effect on your Internet campaign?
Knowing that you will be the focal point of politically minded hackers (believe it or not, they are out there!), how are you going to handle site security?
How do you assure the public that what they read on your site is genuine and unadulturated?
"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." - Jack Nicholson
What have you found about soliciting money via the Internet: have you found that the money raised via the Internet is worth the time and effort it takes to put up a nice, slick, polished website and a https server?
;)
Just a question from the 'little guy': of course, this 'little guy's' vote could be the one that makes or breaks your campaign
That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
In the "Agenda" section on algore2000.com, I can't help but notice a pointed lack of comments on intellectual property laws. If Al Gore intends to make the internet a "duty-free" zone for commerce, thereby promoting the already insanely rapid growth of internet business, how does he intend to deal with issues such as the recent trend of "questionable" patent applications, the semi-legitimate buying/selling of domain names, the open-sourcing of code, and other issues closely related to intellectual property? And, now that I think of it, I wonder if Gore has any ideas on how to deal with the huge "information provider" type mergers, such as AOL/Time Warner. -sircase Please wait a moment, I am constructing haiku. What season is this?
Went to the site 02/19/00 1948.23 PST to see the code myself and the freakin' sit is down, has been for the last 10 minutes! Way to go!
I looked a few times on this win95 NS4.6 platform and didn't see any pull down menus for the top nav bar. It's probably an image map like the bottom one but I can't be sure 'cause-a the DHTML,(IMG SRC="/graphics/navmap_0799.gif" USEMAP="#nav_map_0799" BORDER=0 WIDTH=515 HEIGHT=31 alt="Site Navigation"BR clear="all" ) but I am sure there's no javascript there to generate a pull-down.
All you'd be able to see with the dynamic code is is a simple j-script saying basically "load sections 3, 4.."which pop in the html and j-script. They're just navigations numbers. If you had them you could re-arrange the site, that's all. Not missing much.
I wish I could test on different platforms. If it's true that the site is inaccessible or loads differently for different platforms then it really is inexcusable and a total joke. If.
This site was made with an editor, most likely Dreamweaver 2. I'm a little surprised at that; for the hard-core taggers that will earn instant scorn and no votes. There are ways to hide that, but evidently they don't know it. Yet.
Generally I think of DHTML frame sites as a stupid web trick--the app is truly approporiate only for huge content sites that really do fill the frames with relevant content links--see the LA Times. They've locked in their design scheme for the rest of the year, and they'll be constrained in customizing certain sections, because once they change that section it will be loaded all over the site with DHTML, which they won't want. Stupid.
Site design & code: C-. An essay on open source with a red-hot animated link by Gore would be much better than that semi-hokey comment in the HTML.
What is the goal for online campaigning? One possible motivation is as a quick and effecient way for online voters to get information online (which will probably be skewed to that demographic...) Another possible motivation would be to try to mobolize online voters as a block. Another is to attempt to get a faster feedback loop on campaign direction. A further possible motivation would be to use the online forum as a think tank. Each purpose is served best by different methods of online presence.
Hopefully I've given enough information to make the question meaningful.
The number you have dialed is imaginary, please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.
DON'T FORGET THAT TOMORROW IS TROLL DAY. TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS AND GET THEM TO PARTICIPATE. MODERATION IS ALMOST DEAD. TOMORROW WE CAN FINISH IT OFF!!
THANK YOU.
ALSO, ANY POLITICAL CANDIDATES WANTING MY VOTE SHOULD PUBLICLY SHAVE THEIR GENITALIA AND ANNOUNCE SUPPORT FOR TROLLING.
"Have some dignity" --Mickey Knox
Will the web site talk about the issues? I mean the retoric needs to be dispensed with and there needs to be categories on the web site each going into detail about different issues. This would help a voter decide on the issues. For instance there could be categories for the environment, the economy, taxes, foreign policy, and even the internet. There could also be a message forum to answer voters questions. If each candidate would do this it would make ours a more democratic society and maybe even encouage more people to vote. And what about internet town meetings? Of course, this would be a town meeting everyone could participate in. Xrunner
Vote Al Gore 2000! Yes, it's really Armani!
God Bless,
Al Gore
Inventor of the Internet
God Bless,
Al Gore
Inventor of the Internet
Father of our Country
Does this mean that you unknowingly collect it? How could you be unaware of whether you collect data on kids or not?
What does this mean? Why would candidate Gore use an HTML comment to post a message to your web site developers?
Thank you for your time.
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)