John Edwards' Campaign Enters Second Life

politics 2.0 writes "It may not be an official effort — yet — but thanks to a grass-roots effort, John Edwards has become the first presidential candidate to set-up-shop in Second Life. Jerimee Richir, whose avatar is called Jose Rote, paid-for and developed Edwards' virtual headquarters, and, on a voluntary basis, is managing the in-world campaign. Considering that Second Life's user numbers are much smaller than other social networks, such as MySpace and Facebook — aside from generating press coverage — will campaigning in Second Life actually win many votes? Rote says yes, and that 'Second Life users are a unique audience, in that, they are first adopters. It is a smaller community, but I would argue it is a more influential community.'"

Comments

The Next VRML

[P(0)(!P(k) P(k 1))]

From TFS:

[W]ill campaigning in Second Life actually win many votes?

You know, I really liked John Edwards; granted, he pulled the daddy worked 36 years in NC textile thing one too many times, but his daughter is hot.

As far as Second Life goes: you guys are just the next VRML; deal with it.

Re:USA isn't the whole world, you know...

[VJ42]

I wonder if France has figured out a way to surrender in Second Life yet. Are you English? If not cease and desist from French bashing. The English peoples claim sole rights to that activity (after we spent the best part of a millennium at war with them, we deserve it), all other peoples are prohibited and licences are no longer granted since the whole "freedom fries" fiasco proved that no one else can do the job properly. Other prohibited activities reserved for the English and\or British are winding up the Germans over the war and\or football.

He just doesn't ring true

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll probably get troll rated by Edwards partisans, but he just doesn't ring true to me. When I examine candidates, I examine their history and look at what they've said in the past and what they say now, to see if there's a thread of consistency and integrity.

He's against the Iraq war now that it's safe and popular to be, but he not only voted for it, he was actually the Co-Sponsor of Lieberman's bill.
  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ000 46:@@@P:
Even Kerry, who caught a lot of flack for voting for the war before voting against it or whatever the mangled soundbite was, had the intelligence to not Co-Sponsor the war. But Edwards joined Zell Miller, Jesse Helms, and Sturm Thurmond to Co-Sponsor Lieberman's bill. He defended his vote for the war and even said he "wasn't duped" by the president, and said that he would invade Iraq if he were president even after no WMDs were found. He didn't back down until after 2004 was over, because he was afraid of looking "weak" on national security. Of course, now his tune has turned 180 degrees.

He also said he's a champion of the poor, citing his work suing doctors for medical malpractice on behalf of "the little guy." And yet, when you examine his legal history, he has never done a single Pro Bono case.

Now that he's wooing Labor Unions for primary support, he's done a lot of good work campaigning for raising the minimum wage, even though it doesn't take political courage for a Democrat to say he's in favor of it, since it plays well to the base. But if you look at his Senate record, he's responsible for a lot of stuff that went against Labor Union interests. He voted to give China most favored nation status and the attendant trade conditions of that status, even though we have a huge trade deficit with China and their taking of our manufacturing base. Edwards also voted for expansion of the H1B visa program that allows companies to import foreign high tech workers (such as programmers and computer engineers) to fill American jobs but deny them immigration status. This work visa is a non-immigration visa, so they end up taking American jobs but not being able to contribute to America's future by becoming citizens. H1-Bs have been blamed for helping to keep American software wages depressed.

He tries to cater to the environmentalists and the poor, but then he engages in a major act of conspicuous consumption by tearing down wilderness to construct a new mansion. I think he has the right to live however he wishes, and his house is a silly issue to focus on, but it does underscore a lack of congruity.

Now, people do change over time, and the positions of career politicians certainly do. Surely he has seen the error of Iraq by now, and perhaps he started to grow a focus on poverty and labor long after he left the Senate, thus accounting for why he didn't sponsor any anti-poverty legislation in congress. But when you see that he changes significantly on several major issues, a pattern begins to emerge.

When I look for candidates, I try to see if their past actions match their current rhetoric and pandering. I try to see if their private faces out of the spotlight match their current public faces on the campaign trail.

Unfortunately for Edwards, he falls short in my eyes. It rings false.

He voted for....nay, CO-SPONSOREd...the Iraq War and now apologizes. Two ways of looking at it...Honest mistake, in which case he lacks the judgment on matters of war and peace to be president...or disingenious jockeying to follow public opinion, in which case he lacks the political courage to follow his conscience instead of the polls.

I put a lot of thought into examining candidates who want to be my president...and I just cannot in good conscience vote for Edwards.

Okay, pro-Edwards partisans may now troll-rate me.