Slashdot Mirror
A Preview of Election 08 - Podcasting Politicians
Video Blogger writes "The LA Times predicts that the 2008 election will feature the rise of Podcasting Politicians, as strategists from both parties try to ride the latest trends to secure a victory in 2008. 'You'll not only be able to text people with messages, you'll be able to raise money, deliver video, audio, create viral organizing -- where one person sees something really interesting and it gets passed on and on,' says Donnie Fowler, a Democratic strategist."
...Bill Frist Post!?
Jory
I hereby predict that podcasts will cease to be cool by January '09.
unless I have a better choice than a douche versus a turd, which seemed to be all that was being offered in the presidential elections the last few years.
This technology might be fun if it helps get a darkhorse nominated, but because the people in the age group most likely to listen to podcasts don't bother to vote (demographically), I think it will be a nonissue.
In any case, I would much rather not hear about the presidential elections until '08 itself, thank you very much. Perhaps podcasts can play a role in '06 elections. Yes, it's likely to be more local, but while everybody is shitting their pants waiting for Bush to leave office in '08, you can vote for people and hopefully get them into all sort of positions that will give his administration a tough time. After all, even the president/administration has to work with people (senators, congressmen, local politicians) to make various things happen.*
*I'm independent before people accuse me one being for 1 crappy party or the other.
With spam going one way and pork going the other, we're going to need bigger tubes.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
You know, there's nothing more pointless than using a complicated and large file type for something that could have been expressed perfectly well in text. Text can be read as fast or slow as you like, you can skip text passages without having to search for a sentence to start, you can search it, you can quote it easily and you can reread parts you want to read again much faster than having to skip to a point in a sound file.
But then again pointless seems to describe many endeavours undertaken by politicians.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Best thing about 2008 is Bush --;
The LA Times predicts that the 2008 election will feature the rise of Podcasting Politicians, as strategists from both parties try to ride the latest trends to secure a victory in 2008.
And as we've all seen, the latest trend in internets technology is tubes. That's right, not a big truck, but tubes.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
There is a site launched recently targeted towards Politicians of any faction to use as a resource for NetRoots Campaigning. It is not surprising really to consider the web as the next frontier for vote gathering. NetRootCampaigning.com does a great job of explaining why online campaigning will play such a pivotal role in upcoming elections, through the use of blogs, pod casts and audio distribution of speeches. The idea that you can get to know the candidates better makes sense, and the web is a great forum for accomplishing this. Each candidate that creates a strong web presence should be commended, we may for once be able to see that it is they are all about.
Jason
There's no reason for a serious politician to podcast. The votings been rigged for a long time, and it's common knowledge that politicians are in it for the money that they get from businesses in the form of contributions and bribes to pass laws that give the business paying the politician a financial advantage in the short or long term, usually at the detriment to everybody else.
If you listen to the speeches, the politicans just repeat the same pointless nothings, without any connection to serious and mostly unknown modern issues. They silence their opponents through anti-1st amendment libel and slander laws, since the truth usually cannot be explicitly proven. The entire notion of a ballot, with a very limited number of people to choose from, was created by nearly ancient corrupt, cheating polititians, who after winning the cheating contest that we call elections, made new laws to ensure that they and their team could stay in office and accept large quantities of money in the form of bribes.
The current Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel has already a podcast.
. bundesregierung.de/podcast/Die_Kanzlerin_direkt_01 .m4v
s /VideoPodcast/video-podcast.html
The first podcast (obviously in german): http://a4.g.akamai.net/7/4/12313/v0001/medien.www
All podcasts of Angela:
http://www.bundeskanzlerin.de/Webs/BK/DE/Aktuelle
What do you think about it?
is going to willingly download political podcasts which are basically campaign ads, other than someone who is already fanatically committed to the particular candidate. Seriously, I simply can't imagine going to all that trouble to hear a campaign ad. Now I suppose if I have autofeeds set up and they find a way to jam their infomercials into my PodPlayer, I might accidentally hear one or two, but frankly, to me that would be like audio spam, and I would hold that against the candidate -- it would certainly not convince me to vote for him/her.
I'm sure there will be a large number of people listening to podcasts of their favorite politicians, but I am equally sure it will have no bearing on the outcome of the election.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
Yes, the Democrats have realised, just as Rheinhold predicted all those years ago, that lots of people will have mobile phones in 2008!
It's stunning, and I expect the use of mobile phones will dramatically change the future of elections! For example, to raise money, people won't call fixed lines any more, but - get this! - call donors on their mobile phone!!
The opportunities are limitless... you could actually send people text messages to remind them to vote. You could... like... get them to download your ads, if you called them something cool like "podcasts"...
This kind of amazing insight is why the Democrats will definitely win the next elections, unless of course the Republicans simply start a new war, deport some gay abortion doctors to Guantanamo Bay for immigration violations, and install yet more unverifiable voting machines in all the swing states.
Democrats, please! If you want to win in 2008, listen to your young, radical wing. Impeach Bush. Reform Congress, starting by kicking out the corrupt Democrat congressmen who have sold out their constituents. Get people tuned into the real problems in the country... the failed war on drugs, the corruption of the ruling elite, the systematic theft of the nation's wealth by the military-industrial complex, the acts of aggression on foreign states, the institution of a spy state, the use of torture on people held without trial or representation.
Get a million people into the streets, and do this using text messages, of course, like people's revolutions have done all over the world for the last ten years. Get organised using wikis, email lists, and real grass roots movements. Forget the hype, and please, please, please don't read any more Rheinhold.
But, since you Democrat leaders seem to be part of the same machine that elected Bush, I guess I'm spitting into the wind by saying this.
My blog
To the idiot who called my post a troll: This is not a troll - it is not my purpose to start some sort of off topic discussion so that I can laugh at people - it is an absolutely truthful and insightful post.
Kerry's Communist medal was on both television and in the newspapers back in 1983 - I remember it because I am a Vietnam Vet - and I remember what Kerry did. I am not the only person who remembers it - it was in the NY Times and the Houston Chronicle.
where one person sees something really interesting and it gets passed on and on
That closed-loop, forward-to-your-friends behavior is already an echo chamber ringing loudly with nonsensical, tin-foil lined inanities (across the idealogical spectrum) and apocryphal pablum. We already see enough "I don't usually forward this sort of thing, but this is really spooky!" crap from people that we still pretend are our friends.
Political-camp-driven psuedo-factoid-chain-letter type behavior is going to continue to amplify the already tunnel-vision madness that typifies the current election cycle for people in both parties. None of it persuades anyone to change their mind about anything because the simple act of receiving it in your inbox subjects it to already well-armored biases (well founded or otherwise) that result in the same instantly applied judgement that's used to throw out V1@gr4 spam. This sort of stuff may help a candidate keep her already-loyal base stoked up, but is there any question about those votes anyway?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
We really got socked last time because the religious right will all go out and vote, and for some reason, as passionately as our generation feels about things, not enough of us made our voice heard at the final hour. Please, please put down the iPod for 2 seconds and go out and vote this time!
stuff |
I'm sure there will be a large number of people listening to podcasts of their favorite politicians, but I am equally sure it will have no bearing on the outcome of the election.
Let's say I'm supportng Joe Smith in the 2008 election, and my friend hasn't made up his mind between Joe Smith and Sally Jones. I listen to Joe's podcast for a minute every day becasue I'm interested. Since it's so up to date, he uses it to explain/rebuff/discuss/declare current issuse, be they on policy, personal life and decisions, qualifications, whatever. Because I've listened to it, I'm up to speed, and can use that better (or at least more convincing) knowledge to more effectively persuade my friend that Joe Smith is the way to go.
You're right that only people who have already committed will tune in. But, they'll be more prepared to persuade their friends, since they'll have more up to date and relevant knowledge.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
But since the president doesn't write his own speachs it would have even lessing meaning then it does when he presents it to people. It would be 'here is a statement I endorse' type stuff, and you couldn't hold him to it like we try to do when he gives a speech.
Pete/Petri "damn, my chainsaw is clogged with 1's and 0's again." --clyde
Congress is absolutely baffled as the winner of the 2009 Presidential Elections turned out to be a beefed up version of A.L.I.C.E, deployed as a marketing scheme for Intel to show off their new Octal Core processor!
The major difference, however, is where the leadership is coming from. Repubs are primarily driven by a few think tanks and the Karl Rove brigade, which was able to whip people into shape up until this year. We've seen just in recent weeks Bill Frist (and many other Repubs) break away from the "Party Agenda" to ideas favoring what they think their constituencies desire. Which is natural; the current administration (some argue the entire Republican party) has fallen into deep disfavor among the people and Repubs are scrambling for damage control.
Dems are going through a different transition, driven by the "Vast Left Wing Conspiracy" characterized by MoveOn. There's in-fighting right now, because many of the Democratic leaders aren't leading us in a direction we're willing to go. Asserting Lieberman or Hillary are centrist is laughable; they're Right.
Many people feel that the one thing is needed at this point is obstructionism. Bush and cronies have gotten us nowhere good with a rubber stamp congress, and requires someone(s) to stop him. Bush is not nor will ever be a coalition builder. His dirty political master Rove has ensured that none of the current Republican flock will be effectual in building a coalition, with few exceptions. (Those exceptions being centrist republicans that have tended to vote against the R groupthink in the first place)
The democratic party is developing a coherent agenda for 2006. The messages are getting out to those who actually care to listen. And a coup is developing in the Dem party, driven by grass-roots efforts to make politicians accountable to the wishes of their party, not their lobbyists.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
that I read the headline as "Purchasing Politicians"?
So the L.A. Times thinks podcasting could turn the tide in the 2008 U.S. presidential election? Bwahahahaha... let's run the numbers:
One of the most optimistic predictions of a podcast audience comes Forrester Research Group, who says that 12 million people will regularly listen to podcasts by 2010. So let's roll that number back a bit and generously say that the 2008 podcasting audience is 10 million. Of that, maybe one-tenth will be tuned into anything political; the rest will be listening to crap like this.
So, a million political podcast listeners in 2008. Enough to swing an election? Maybe, if they are all from Texas and/or Florida. But of course, they won't be. And they won't all liberal, or all conservative.
The real advantage podcasting holds for pols is that it's a cost effective means of getting a message out, i.e. bandwidth is cheaper than broadcast air time, and is not subject to campaign finance law (not yet, anyway).
sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
by 2008, so will it really matter? :p
I'm in the podcasting demographics sweetspot and I still do vote. And when I vote, I care. I try to soak up as much info about which politician might be worth my vote as possible. I do have a preferred party, but give the other candidate always a chance. Podcasting sounds like an interesting alternative to TV duels (which sometimes skew thing out of perspective).
After the compassionate conservative we now get the podcasting politicians. What's the next political alliteration spin? The docile democrat? The loony liberal? The presentable president?
But huzzah, we have a new toy to make politicians look "modern" and "in touch with current technology". I'd love to hold an interview with them about a few "modern" issues like net neutrality, copyright law and DRM and find out how much they really know about the things they make laws about.
Considering the laws we get, my bet would be on "nothing".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This podcasting politicians thing makes me think that if Congress allows ISP's to play favorites with what files get priority treatment, you can bet your last US dollar that there will be a law mandating that priority treatment be given to all use of the Internet by politicians spouting campaign propaganda, at no additional cost to the politicians. While we wait for Google to load, Senator so-and-so's daily video podcast will come flying onto our desktops.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
That would be assuming that the Political Strategist for the candidate isn't involved in the podcast. Just another way to say the same things in the same ways in a different medium.
Same problem here. I posted something that was originally 5, Funny. Then after several responses, it was later in the day, marked down to -1, Troll. My karma never recovered.
Here's the problem. You're adding 2 and 2 and getting 97. I'm willing to accept that the government of Vietnam may well have "awarded" everyone who participated in Vietnam Veterans Against The War. So? If it happened, it was done without his knowledge or consent. Did he go there to pick the medal up? Of course not. Anyone can "award" anyone anything.
Look, you're apparently one of those veterens who remain unwilling to accept that your service and sacrifice was done for a pointless war. Possibly you did things in that war that you are not proud of, and to avoid dealing with that, you've chosen to demonize those who chose to assuage their guilt by trying to stop the war.
Watch "Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry" and "Winter Soldier" to get the liberal viewpoint. At the time, one of his closest friends told him "You know that by doing this you've given up any hope of ever being President". It was a sacrifice to try to save the lives of the other soldiers.
BTW, you're wrong about the political leanings of the Slashdot crowd. If polled, I suspect most of them will identify themselves as "Libertarians" (i.e. the greed and selfishness of Republicans combined with the clear-headed rationality of the Area 51 fanatics)
"How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
Podcasts and video podcasts are now being used in several new open source apps that allow independent journalist shows, the foremost being the Democracy player. You get Media Matters for America, Democracy Now!, MediaRights, Willie Nelson (!!), ActiveFreeMedia, the Echo Chamber Project, N.O. TV, and more.
The player is available for Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux.
Those who laugh at you for you having a Mac.. are the people who constantly call you to fix their PC.
Wow! All 2 of the parties?! What are we serving tonight... chicken, or chicken?
There is no way in hell I am going to listen to some politician bloviating for a half hour on my MP3 player when I could be using my time more productively to listen to something more enjoyable.
t _mp3
I am personally at wits end with podcasts. I have always been an avid talk show listener, tuning in to both commercial and public radio. I was excited when 'podcasting' started, first as streaming audio, and then as downloadable mp3s. I still enjoy listening to professionals bloviating on podcasts. What I dislike, intensely, is the amount of amateur garbage that floats around the pod-o-sphere. The final straw was when I listened to a Slate podcast today. What should have been a quick 45 second clip was a 3 minute long masturbation fest that had little redeeming content and a 20 second commercial!
Damn it...I demand better podcasting. What makes a radio show or podcast sound good (you know, professional) has not changed. Nationally syndicated broadcasters personally spend 7 to 12 hours preparing for a 1 to 4 hour show, not including the time their staff spend working on the content. And the actual audio quality is terrific.
What do we get with an average podcast? A guy who in his spare time spends maybe an hour throwing together a half hour long radio show recording on a $200 microphone and mixed with audacity. I got news for podcasters...reading other people's websites and blog posts is not what I want to waste my time listening to. I want ORIGINAL CREATIVE INFORMATIVE content, that I can not get from traditional media.
Solution? Shorter podcasts. Thats right. 1 to 2 minutes tops. I have a very short attention span. I was going to include a torrent link to an example of a short podcast that yours truely has made, but I cant seem to get it to work....give it a try though: http://torrentspy.com/torrent/798297/CrappyPodCas
Won't these clog up the tubes? I need my internets delivered promptly.
Yay! Election '08 will include podcasts... of course the podcasts will be of politicians trying very hard not to take a firm stand on controversial issues, making vauge and completly meaningless promises ("I promise to help every American achieve the 'American Dream'"... "I promise to protect America"), and lots of issueless propoganda human interest videos designed to make a candidate more "human" and "likeable" ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDhv15EKJNo&search= al%20gore%20unseen ).
a rian-fundraiser-foiled/ ), etc. And the FBI will be used to spy on political adversaries (done by both Dubya and Clinton).
So called "Democracy Activists" will hail it as a great victory for "people power"... meanwhile elections will take place in gerrymandered ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymander ) districts to keep incumbent politicians in power, "Campaign Finance Reform" laws like McCain-Feingold will be used to censor political speech ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory16.html ), and third parties will be banned from elections by catch-22 regulations ("Your party needed to have recieved 10% of the vote in the last election in order to be on the ballot this year"... Yeah, but if you are not on the ballot, how the hell do you ever get on the ballot? Essentially the law only allows Republicans or Democrats to run), or banned from gatherings or fundraising by legal harrasment ( http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/07/10/nude-libert
I expect podcasting to even further degrade journalism and become more sensationalized. Check out the lowering in the quality of debate in 24 years:
1980 Carter Reagan Debate: http://www.debates.org/pages/trans80b.html
2004 Kerry Bush Debate: http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004c.html
Here is an example of the difference in questions asked in 1980:
"Mr. President, when you were elected in 1976, the Consumer Price Index stood at 4.8%. It now stands at more than 12%. Perhaps more significantly, the nation's broader, underlying inflation rate has gone up from 7% to 9%. Now, a part of that was due to external factors beyond U.S. control, notably the more than doubling. of oil prices by OPEC last year. Because the United States remains vulnerable to such external shocks, can inflation in fact be controlled? If so, what measures would you pursue in a second term?"
And the type of questions asked in 2004:
"Mr. President, what do you say to someone in this country who has lost his job to someone overseas who's being paid a fraction of what that job paid here in the United States?"
I challenge anyone to tell me that the debates haven't turned into a completly idiotic parody of Democracy.
Sorry folks, Democracy was supposed to be about people governing themselves... and by governing themselves, I mean people making decisions for themselves. Having a popularity contest for 300 million people to elect a centralized executive branch and legislative branch with no limits on power whatsoever is not Democracy - It is popular authoritarianism. You doing whatever you want (so long as it doesn't directly harm someone else) is Democracy, electing a tiny oligarchy to have total power over your life, your education, transportation, health care, lifestyle choice, and economics is not democracy - It is popular totalitarianism! Giving the handful of eligble people in the elite political class better viral marketing is not going to do anything to make the country better. It is only going to create the presidential version of the Subserviant Chicken the norm.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What does that have to do with liberals? I only see socialdemocrats and conservatives there, no liberals.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
When you elect someone you elect a person, not a machine that will robotically implement ideas. So people often vote based on personality and character, not just ideas that can be expressed in long written passages. Personality and character come through much more clearly when you can hear someone speak, and watch their face. Tone of voice, gesture, how they look at their audience, facial expression and how it correlates with what's being said -- all these things give the listener unconscious insight into the personality of the speaker.
Electing a leader is unfortunately something like choosing a lover. You have to trust them with really important stuff. You wouldn't pick a girlfriend based solely on her e-mail, would you? You'd need to see her, speak to her in person, to let your gut instinct decide on whether to trust her, whether she shared your deepest ideals. Same general idea.
All you need to do is go on cnn and utter two words: DMCA repeal.
instant lockin of the entire techie vote.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
On the other hand, maybe the strong voices on both sides are equally hysterical, and the truth is that both national parties, while flawed, pretty much have the best interests of the Republic at heart, and are doing about as well as they humanly can.
See, another thing about being young is one tends to be very passionate about things. Young folks often think The End Of The World is just around the corner, if X or Y doesn't happen soon. Folks past 40 years of age, or thereabouts, tend to be more sanguine. If the Republic survived the Civil War and the Cold War, the Great Depression and the age of robber barons, the corruption of Tammany Hall and the crusading folly of Woodrow Wilson, then it will probably weather the War On Terror(TM), the dire threat of the President possibly monitoring how many times citizens make cell-phone calls to Pakistan, and the inexorable rise in oil prices as the supply dries up.
As for the evil rich versus "the rest of us," let me offer you a thought: in a country like the United States, where inherited wealth is of minimal influence (the average million-dollar fortune lasts less than 3 generations), people generally only become rich because they are good leaders and organizers. The most common way people get rich is by starting their own successful business -- which means they (1) have good original ideas, (2) can persuade others to help implement those ideas, (3) are good at managing the implementation of ideas, and (4) are good at selling those ideas to the general public.
You don't get rich in a modern free economy by using violent force to exploit the masses, like some medieval armored knight. You have to persuade lots of people to buy a product or service you sell, by offering a superior product or better service at a lower price than all the other folks who are also trying to get rich. You have to be good at figuring out what people really want, and good at supplying it. Isn't that exactly the kind of person you'd want in leadership roles? Why would you prefer someone who is too stubborn, self-centered, unfocussed or lazy to be able to earn a good living by the time he is 50 or 60?
Think of it this way: who would you rather have as CEO of the software company for whom you work, someone who has become rich by successfully starting and steering other software companies, bringing wildly-successful products to market? Or someone whose companies always crash because he can't work well with people, or who, even though he's a regular guy and good friends with all the employees, can't make any difficult decisions?
Another point about "the rich" that may be relevant: the most important factor in wealth is age. People in their 20s are relatively poor, burdened with debt from college, poorly paid compared to their skills on paper. Older people are relatively rich, with substantial assets -- houses, stocks, retirement accounts -- and relatively well paid compared to their skills on paper (because they have valuable but unquantifiable experience). Wealth takes time and experience to accumulate, and young people haven't had that time yet. But by the same token, almost all young and relatively poor people will become comfortably well off as they grow older. So if you rail about "the rich" when you are young, it's worth bearing in mind you are railing about your older self.
I think you've got exactly the Republicans you deserve representing you.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Note on the last link, it's from a DLC affiliate site and obviously written by somebody who doesn't know who underwrites his paychecks.
As for "one of the problems with the progressive agenda is that they have no idea where the center is"... let's see. Based on polls for the American people and public statements of DLCers:
Tech Public Policy stuff
Just because someone opposes the government forcefully taking their money to fund an inefficient, ineffective, dependency-creating social program does not mean they are greedy. I suspect that Republicans and Libertarians willingly donate to private charities, or other, similar programs, as much as or more than Democrats. It may just be that they don't like doing it with a gun to their head and half of it being wasted.
Just because someone is not fully trusting of the motives of government does not make them an "Area 51 fanatic", although there seems to be a lot of that fanaticism on Slashdot.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
I sure as hell wouldnt vote for someone who texted me with a "vote for me" sms. And I like how podcasting is the politician's attempt to use the "latest" technology. Lets just hope they dont fill the tubes with all their huge amounts of information. Huge amounts of information.
The assumption that government social programs are inefficient is not supported by the facts. Medicare, for instance, is the most efficient insurer. Less than 3% of Medicare's total costs go to administration. 97% of what comes in goes back out in medical care. Of course private insurers don't publish their numbers, but there is no doubt that any insurance company that had a profit level of only 3%, let alone total costs of doing business, would not remain in business long. Their shareholders would riot!
It's a nice sentiment, but it's just not true. The vast majority of rich Republicans only give money to charities if they get a fancy party out of it. If you want to get a real perspective on it, read Arriana Huffington's essay on her transformation from Republican conservative to Democratic liberal. She had believed that the rich would willingly give to help the poor and set up a charity to try to get them to do so. No luck. They are happy to attend expensive parties that cost nearly as much as they collect, but as for just giving because it's a good idea or a social obligation? Not gonna happen.
"How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
"the" suggests that in 2008 there going to be a singular election? Which one is it then? 95% of the world's population don't live in the USA.
Oh that horrible American exceptionalism... those arrogant bastards! Why in the world would the slashdot editors not correctly label a story from the LOS ANGELES TIMES as being from the United States! Those bumble-thumping, fat and greedy, israel-loving, arab-bombing yankees are at it again!
Democratic party supporters came around trying to get us to sign up to vote my freshman year. When I got to the form field that said phone number I said "Well we haven't set up our dorm phone yet." They said, "That's fine, just put down your cell phone." Not thinking, I just wrote it down and handed it to them. About a minute later, I thought better of it and asked them if I could get my form back, because I didn't really want to be called on my cell phone. They said "Sure, just cross it out." I scribbled it out, but didn't like obliterate it... but apparently they put it in their system anyways because I get phone calls from Democratic party people all the time, and that's basically the only place they could have gotten it.
Bottom line is, calling my cell is one level of annoyance. Text messaging me is a whole new level, since I pay per message. So, yah, go ahead, campaign managers, embrace technology by sending messages that are free to send, but cost money to receive. If I get a text message from you, I won't be voting for you.
I won't consider registering Democratic or voting for most Democrats. If the Democratic party would propose and deliver a coherent, workable agenda, instead of attempting to cripple our government through obstructionism and presenting themselves simply as the "we're not Bush" party
THAT's fucking hilarious.
Crippling the government through obstructionism and presenting themselves as the "We're not Bush" party IS THEIR FUCKING JOB! That's why they are called the OPPOSITION PARTY!
Gingrich shut down the government in 1995. Have the Democrats done anything even approaching opposition such as you claim? NO. So why all of your whining?
Embracing centrist views is the only way Democrats will garner enough votes to get elected in force. Bill and Hillary and a handul of others understand this, why don't the rest of you? I'm not pleased with where this country is going, but I simply don't see anyone offering viable alternatives.
Right. That's how Republicans got elected by being more centrist. Give me a break.
If given the choice between a Republican and a Republican, the voter is going to vote Republican every time.
You don't win voters over by becoming more like the opposition party. You win voters over by showing that you have different ideas, and explaining why they are better. With the complete and utter failure of Conservate ideology, one would hope that Democrats can do that.
There will be two major effects of this phenomenon:
1. Minor candidates will get their message heard at relatively no cost.
2. Come election time, someone will spoof every podcast on the net, thus getting viraled far more than the big candidates, thus making it harder for everyone, big or small, to get their message out.
But overall, I think it's a great strategy. It really evens the playing field, and will make the candidates more personable.
Affordable Health Coverage
challengeing incumbent Herb Kohl in the Democratic Primary. While i have yet to produce a podcast, you can grab this interview from Wisconsin Public Radio, recorded yesterday.
First half hour is Milwaukee Journal/Sentinal's Washington correspondent Craig Gilbert discussing the Senate race. Then, I'm on for the 2nd 1/2 hr.
Topics include cellphone location tracking, and the DOPA (Deleting Online Predators act), passed in the house last week, which would require schools and libraries to filter chatrooms andsocial networking sites.
Registered Slashdot user since 1998, Karma: Excellent.
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary