Slashdot Mirror
Obama's MySpace Drama
fistfullast33l writes "TechPresident, which is covering the use of technology by Presidential Campaigns for 2008, has a very interesting article on how Obama's MySpace page is currently the subject of an underground battle for control by the campaign itself and the volunteer who created it in 2004. Joseph Anthony worked with the campaign initially and grew the site to include over 160,000 unsolicited friends that the campaign could use to reach out to. It currently is the main Obama page in the Impact Channel on MySpace. However, as Obama's campaign became more centralized and formal, the decision was made to attempt to acquire control of the site from Anthony. They asked him for a price, which he offered up as $49,000 plus part of the $10,000 fee paid to MySpace for the Impact Channel. Obama balked at the price, and decided to start afresh rather than pay the money. The fight broke out into the open when Anthony posted a response on his blog to rumors that the campaign was spreading regarding him wanting to cash out. MyDD has more."
Yeah, I was just reading the article about NASA and space-sex, so I misread the title. Reality is never as cool as my caffeine-deficient brain-damaged hallucinatory interpretation of reality. :(
The enemies of Democracy are
The guy wants to be president. He's a politician. And now some guy is surprised he is up to dirty tricks? Politicians are all scum, no matter which flag they wave. Remeber: Poly = many, tick = small bloodsucking parasite.
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
If you vote for me in 08, I'll do everything in my power to keep politicians off Myspace *crowd cheers*
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
Give me a break ... some guy wants to charge him 49 K plus to get his name back ... i wouldn't pay that either!
And if, as he claims, they suggested a one-time fee, and then rejected his offer as an attempt to moneygrab, that is sneaky.
But why would you need money for this, anyway? Compenstation for work already done?
Anyway, considering the millions raised for campaigning, 50,000 is not so much.
I would certainly hope the Obama camp understands that anything affecting anyone's main presence on the internet will end up all over the internet.
It is hard to believe any Myspace account could be worth that much.
Windows Vista Help Forum
Well, Anthony's comment has already been removed, along with the "page missing page".
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
This is what happens when an idealist gets mixed up with politics.
They say politics is like sausage. You can't simultaneously appreciate the taste of sausage and know how it's made.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
So, Obama has $19 million on hand from fund raising and donations and he can't drop a year's salary to this guy for the work he's done maintaining a MySpace site? And if the guy invested $10k of his own money on good faith that it would help the campaign ... I'm shocked that he's not asking for more. I mean, isn't that chump change to Obama? And doesn't Obama have to dispose of that money before the election otherwise it's gotta go to charity (I'm not a politician, I forget the rules of soft money).
... Obama's campaign managers didn't like it so decided to make their own. Interesting drama but not really news.
I'm getting the feeling that I'm not hearing the whole story here. Nobody's doing anything wrong though, this is clear cut capitalism. The man has the only supply for the product
My work here is dung.
Are you kidding me? He's not charging $49k to give the name back - he started the site as a supporter of Obama 2 freakin years ago, not knowing that Obama would run for president. Now, the campaign wants to take control of his profile page and they asked him to come up with a rough sum rather than hire him as a campaign contributer.
This is a lot like Valve and the mods that came out of Half Life. Valve in that case hired the Counterstrike and DoD teams and gave them jobs. Obama decided they didn't want to do that and instead asked the guy to come up with a sum of money. As MyDD points out, it's roughly 32 cents per friend. That's not too shabby considering how much money they throw away on consultants. And it's only a one time payment. For a campaign that just raised $26 million, to balk at $50,000 is pretty crazy in my opinion.
If you want the facts about the politician, then look at this voting record. His past voting record will indicate how he will future in the future.
By the way, the best candidate for president is Ron Owens, talk-show host on KGO 810 AM in San Francisco.
I don't see why it is so shocking that someone doesn't want to spend $50,000 to get their name back on myspace. Sure he gets a lot of money throughout the campaign, but that doesn't mean that he can go and piss it away on his myspace account. I must be missing something as to why this is a bad thing, it's someone trying to make some money off someone elses misfortune.
I can see this one spinning well on the popular news channels.
_Vishal www.squad9.com
So far I haven't seen one Democrat hopefully worth the cost of the bullet for some patriot to remove them if they somehow managed to get elected.
Let this be a lesson. These people are no better than the ones they want to replace. I know I'm talking to the hand, But it has to be said. You have a choice. Make it a good one. If you all want change, then you have to bring it about. The standard bearers of the status quo won't do it for you.
What?
From his prospective he was doing nothing but helping, and if others were just going to swoop in and take his work with a handshake and a wave, there is a little matter of compensation. I know I like to be paid and recognized for my serious efforts. But at the same time, it's not his name, it's not his reputation, and it's not his ass at the end of the day in a political process that's extremely unforgiving involving at times an unsophisticated audiance. The happy medium that avoids all this, is if he makes his politically oriented activist myspace page using his name, not trading on Obama's. Sure, he's invested time and money in that profile. A lot. But what made it work, the time and money invested in Obama's name? We'll never know the splits in the yield in two camps investments, because he didn't make the page about him, his thoughts, his efforts. So it ends up being unfair to everyone to some degree.
MySpace needs to be taught a lesson like Mayday Digg.
Company discovers there is an individual that created some kind of web presence. Company does not like the content or direction of said web presence. Company tries to work with individual, gets nowhere.
Today the usual outcome is a lawsuit which usually ends up going nowhere. Someone eventually gives up and throws in the towel, usually after both sides have spent plenty of money on advertising, lawyers, PR and whatnot.
How this is resolved offline is very simple because we've had a thousand years of history where Store A puts up a sign saying McDoonalds next to Store B that already had a sign saying McDonalds. There are plenty of cases to look at where this has happened and one side can claim ownership and the other side is clearly the loser.
While politicians could be considered a little different than commercial trademarks, it really isn't that much different and would be decided along similar lines in physical space. Just try to register a corporation called McDoonalds for the business of selling hamburgers in any state. Not going to happen.
Why all of this stuff has to be subjected to lengthy litigation when it happens online escapes me completely. How it is so completely messed up online is absurd. Could I register McDoonalds.com? Absolutely, if it wasn't taken. How much did it cost McDonalds to register every single misspelling of McDonalds just to prevent this from happening? Why was it necessary for them to do this when offline it couldn't have been an issue, and couldn't have been since probably 1700 AD? Maybe since 1700 BC.
Yep.. big trouble a brewing at the polls because of this. If Obama can't reach out to those tens of thousands of 14-17 year olds and the tens of thousands of 18 to 20-somethings that aren't registered to vote on his MySpace.. what will he do? This may turn to political ruin for him. :(
A dumbass politician paying tons of money to promote himself to a pool of young and naive voters. Be still my beating heart.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
Seriously, what's the point? There isn't enough evil in here to make it interesting.
Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act. That is unforgivable, and he deserves nothing but contempt for it. To consider him as worthy is a mistake. If you want freedom, then vote for somebody who wants to protect it, unconditionally.
What?
Read the techPresident link:
http://www.techpresident.com/node/301
There is some sincerity. Everyone sees $49,000 and just jumps to conclusions. He's being asked for a number to give up 2.5 years worth of work. And he told the truth. Apparently the Obama team didn't even bother with negotiating at all. They ignored him and took the high handed approach. Very disrespectful.
Linux Resources
... is that B. Hussien Obama is clamoring for a place in a media holding of News Corp. You know, the company that owns Fox News that the democrats are boycotting.
I'm a staunch Democrat and feminist and I still think she's completely unelectable. She has no convictions and an obsession with power. She gives the impression that she would sway in the tiniest breeze, doing whatever she felt was popular at the moment.
God, remember when she was cool, and had convictions? National health care, remember that? Washington ruined that woman.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It is Mr Obama's decision to buy the Myspace Page , if Joseph Antony is a volunteer he should only take the expences.Or he had to make an aggrement with the campaign directors before if he wanted more money. Mr Obama has the right to create his own page just as everybody else.
So lets break this down, a guy makes a myspace profile for some american political party. He spends a fair bit of his own money on the project. The campaign team make it known their interested in it but are such complete jerks about the transfer (last minute cancelling phone conferences,etc...) that when someone mentions the idea of a fee he jumps at it. When the refused any idea of financial re-embusement for his work they stole the account. One wonders if there is a data protection act in America since expearence in the UK would lead me to think this would be a violation (you can't access an account unless you are the account holder.)
He's not a money grabber, I can understand his point of view if I worked hard on something finally got some recognition and then got treated in a similar way as he did I'd want a 'symbol' for my efforts.
It's a clever trick folks use to grab domains all the time. Ask the person for a price, then point the finger at him saying he's an extortionist. Poor kid, welcome to politics.
This shows Obama's character pretty clearly. He apparently has a sense of entitlement and lacks gratitude for those who supported him early on. Keep it in mind if you find yourself looking at a ballot with his name on it.
cheers,
Andrew
On the other hand, the volunteer's decision to try and cash out rather than cooperate with the campaign is a little short-sighted. If he really thought Obama had a shot at winning, he might have been better served to work with the campaign, maintain their official page, and use that leverage to angle for a cushy government job when Obama got elected.
Except that they made it clear to him that he would NOT be part of the future of the page. The one time payment was just a trap, and the guy fell for it. No matter how crooked they were in going about it, they can destroy his credibility by saying he was just in it for the cash. Even if he had said no to the payment offer, they would have muscled him out one way or another.
The polite thing to do would have been to split the different and give the guy some chump change for his costs and an invite to a few events as a special contributor. Would a few dinners really dent that $28 million dollar campaign?
Anyways, who cares. Obama is nothing more than a republicrat. He's riding the Bush bashing coat tails like all of the democrats but he hasn't shown anything of substance for how he is going to do things better on his watch. Preaching to the choir that Bush sucks is great and all, but what does he actually bring to the table? 4 more years of political foot play at the tax payers' expense.
Nah, if you want real change... Gore/Edwards in '08, now THAT would be an exciting 4 years.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Obama's fantasy is to force his moral code on the rest of us. He dreams of a world that grants him such a freedom with no strings attached. Welcome to the world of nonrepresentationalism! In that nightmare world it has long since been forgotten that I wouldn't judge Obama's allies too harshly. They're indeed just cannon fodder for Obama's plot to retain an institution which, twist and turn as you like, is and remains a disgrace to humanity. Obama says that we're supposed to shut up and smile when he says rummy things. But then he turns around and says that a totalitarian dictatorship is the best form of government we could possibly have. You know, you can't have it both ways, Obama. Sen. Barack Obama stands out as the king of Planet Superficial. Do give that some thought.
Everyone knows Democrats like Obama are for wealth redistribution. This guy's just getting an early taste.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
This is America, damnit! Dont confuse me with the fucking facts about "voting reocrds" and "political stances". I, like almost all normal Americans, only care about what a presidential candidate can promise me, by-gones be damned!
Drama? On MySpace? How long until Obama starts camwhoring?
You're doing it wrong--http://youredoingitwrong.mee.nu
You misspelled "Paul", and he's a doctor(gynecologist to be precise).
This is some guys personal web site, that favored Obama. He set it up YEARS before Obama was announced he was in the presidential race.
Did he ask for money? NO.
This was his baby, his project to help Obama.
Then some low level staffer says "HEY, I like your idea, only I want to run it."
He responds: "No thank you, this mine. Go make your own".
Low level greedy staffer responds "I am one laze SOB. I don't want to do the work, I just want the credit. How much to buy your work?"
Honest, hard working guy responds "Well, if the Obama campaing really wants my personal Pro Obama web site, I could sell it to you. It cost me $10 grand in outright cash, and more than 3 years worth of work. If you really don't want me to run my web site anymore, and want to run it yourself, I'll give it to you for a measily 50 grand."
Read the article first, instead of getting all huffy about who did what.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Except with Obama, there isn't much of a voting record to look at.
He was a STATE senator for Illinois when he was made an instant celebrity by being allowed to make the keynote at the '04 convention. He's basically a stuffed shirt with barely any political experience, and no executive experience whatsoever. It makes him very attractive in the early running because he doesn't have a lot of bad past decisions to run away from the way any experienced politician would, but in the long haul the Shrill Harpie from Little Rock... er... I mean New York... is going to mop the floor with him.
After all, she's a second-term US Senator who also has 8 years experience of telling the President what to do.
I don't know what's scarier, the fact that the Democrat race is shaping up to be these two and the Breck Girl, or that the Republican race is down to the Crazy-Go-Nuts Former POW, the Drag Queen Mayor, and the Book-of-Mormon Thumper.
Out of the six, I'm narrowly leaning towards the Drag Queen Mayor... but praying for SOMEBODY better to come along than these six freaks. I don't care which party. Just find me a candidate I can actually be HAPPY about supporting. Is that so much to ask?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Way back in the day, I built a web site around the Ultima series of computer games. Much of it was scanned copies of Origin Systems' artwork though it also contained walkthroughs, hints and similar fan-supplied stuff from various authors. I'm a big fan of the games, so I built the web site in that vein. It became the central source of information about the Ultima games on the web.
After a while, Origin came along and asked how much I'd be willing to sell it to them for. My answer? Tell me what you think is fair. After all, its their game not mine. They picked a number, I agreed and that was that.
I could have picked a number that was representative of the manpower I put in to making the site. I could have gotten in to a big fight where they accuse me of copyright infringement and I accuse them of bullying, etc. etc.
I could have, but I didn't. I didn't build the site to make money and at the end of the day it was their game, not mine. So I smiled and said, "thank you," sent them a zip file of the content and put a redirect on my web site that pointed to the site's new home.
Joseph Anthony is nobody. Its Obama's myspace profile; Anthony is just a fan. He should have turned it over along with a list of expenses and said, "pay me what you think is fair."
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
I wonder if Joe Anthony is still a big supporter of Obama after all this crap. If I were a bitter individual(I'm not) I'd pull the profile down or possibly deface the site. As it's been stated 50k is a fraction of 26million. His request doesn't seem unreasonable. Especially for 2.5yrs of work.
~Vexed and loving it!
In the myspace linked above I'm seeing 17,071 friends. Thats quite a few less than 160,000.....
You could say the same about campaign ads on television, and radio, and newspapers, and the candidate's own speeches, etc.. In all things, and especially where politics are concerned, the "official" sources aren't the balanced sources.
Hell, if this one kid I went to kindergarten with ever finds my website, he might notice that my official bio fails to mention the time I bit him really hard on the arm, and got suspended for it. And I'm not even a politician!
(In my defense, the little bastard took my crayon.)
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
The most insightful thing I've read in a long time.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
He'll claim he didn't know what his staff was doing and give the site back.
It is very possible that Obama is not at fault here: I would guess that this is all the unilateral action of an evil campaign aid. However, I must agree with the grandparent: politicians (or at least the dirty little henchman that skulk around them) are complete scum.
Cancel your Myspace account, if you have one.
That's great. I'm going to go setup myspace pages for any potential presidential candidates in 2012. I'll gladly update it per their needs, on a volunteer basis. I'll include pictures of them, and make it appear as though I am really that person. Then, when they actually run, I'll charge for all my time or hold the site captive.
If this was www.friendsofobama.com or www.myspace.com/IWantToVoteForBarackObama I would agree. But this is a myspace page where it says it is the "Official Barack Obama Myspace Profile"
I do. You don't take what isn't yours. It's a pretty old principle last time I checked. If it was really important, they would have built up their own MySpace page instead of hijacking someone elses.
How you treat the people underneath you in your daily interactions says a lot about you. How you run your campaign is the same thing. I'll be looking at what Mike Gravel has to say now, thanks.
I was hoping for the Dr. Strangelove reference to show up on the "prolonged space travel" story.
You know..."chosen for their sexual characteristics" and all that jazz....
A goal is a dream with a deadline
The way I see it, this guy volunteered because he believed in a cause and wanted to help out. He volunteered with no expectation of being reimbursed.
Fast forward a while later, and it got to the point where it was more work than he was willing to do for free. He asked for some cash, and they didn't like his offer.
What makes him think that they should retroactively pay him $50k for all of the work he did as a volunteer? And why should they have to, since they were under the assumption he was a loyal volunteer all this time?
Going forward, if he wanted a salary to continue work, I can respect that and would expect a simple negotiation. But it sounds like he got greedy, wanted retro pay, and tried to extort them to get it. Some volunteer!
-David
If the Clinton team is awake, they'll take this and run with it. Good job, cheap and lazy Obama "Internet team".
WARNING: I'm going to ramble a bit...
I was considering him, but that level of disloyalty and ungraciousness absolutely disqualifies him to even work in my mailroom.
Joseph Anthony did a large volume of high quality work over nearly three years as a volunteer -- he contributed in a significant way to Obama's rise to presidential hopeful.It's inexcusable.
And Obama is widely hailed as an idealist. Of course this makes him no worse than most other major party politicians these days. But I'm sick of it, we don't have to have these vain, stupid, money-grubbing, power-mad sellouts "representing" us, do we? It would appear most of them are just puppets really, their strings pulled by Big Business.
I suggest a new meme for 2008: Don't throw your vote away -- don't vote for the major party candidates!
Spread it around. And please, vote your conscience. If enough of us do it we can turn the old meme ("not voting dem or rep is throwing your vote away") completely upside-down.
Caveat Utilitor
The guy built up the MySpace page himself and Obama can do the same - he doesn't have to hijack and control that which doesn't belong to him. The guy was not an official volunteer of the campaign and is under no obligation to hand it over.
1. I make a site psuedo-pretending to be Bob Dylan.
2. Bob likes what I've done, but won't pay what I ask for it.
3. Bob makes his own site, because I'm not Bob Dylan.
4. I get sued.
If Bob's not running for President, this isn't national news.
And what MySpace page is worth $49k? Seriously...
http://digg.com/politics/Obama_campaign_uses_dirty _tricks_to_stomp_on_volunteer_on_MySpace
You miss-understand who's the foolish one. The losses are MUCH greater for the Obama campaign than they are for this guy. He loses a little money, they lose a lot of people connected to Obama, some good will, and gain a little negative publicity. 50 grand is chump change to them. They also could have gained a little positive publicity by paying him the little bit of money he asked for.
Basically, a really dumb move on the part of the Obama campaign.
The situation just isn't analogous to yours. Politicians are a LOT more reliant on public opinion and personal connections than a game company is.
AccountKiller
I didn't know the guy was named Barack Obama.
If you read the mySpace terms of service, you can't pretend to be someone else.
I am shocked that a politician would do something so unethical!
Come on people... 'if they are not kissing babys they are stealing their lollipops.' (mis- quoted from Hunt for Red October)
I would never vote Democrat anyways... they all want my money for their own power (or in this case power grab) and the Republicans are not that much better... and the Independents just cant seem to win.... aaaahhhh crazy world we live in.
Even the Slashdot summary states that they asked the guy how much he wanted, he just gave them a figure they didn't like. He didn't ask for a salary, just what he would like in exchange for giving up control over the site.
"... Gore/Edwards in '08, now THAT would be an exciting 4 years."
How could it not be what with the first robot president? He's now more environment friendly, you know. 23 unfunny jokes and 16 bad ideas to the gallon.
Richardson on some issues.
As far as Patriot Act: Governor Bill Richardson and Attorney General Patricia Madrid Oppose U.S. Patriot Act provisions
Prohibition? I am not sure what you mean there. Do you mean the drug war? Well he signed the Medicinal Marijuana bill in NM, and he has pushed for drug treatment before prosecution. But he has also pushed for minimum sentences for dealers, and supports parts of the war on drugs. So I guess maybe he is in the middle of the road with regards to the drug war.
I am not sure about IP.
This site has a lot of information, although I cannot say if it is to be 100% trusted as I didn't look too hard to see who funds it. On The Issues. It also appears that some of their information is a little out dated.
Bill Richardson is the most qualified and most electable candidate we have at this time. Obama, or Clinton would be disasters.
Do you realize that all of your statements could be refuted or turned 180 degrees?
7 years in the state senate + 4 years in the US Senate = 11 years of voting record by November 2008
Hillary will have a total of 8 years experience in an elected position by November 2008, and none of it is executive. You may feel that "telling the President what to do" counts as experience, but many others don't. And it's not like he listened too well!
I could say the same of Hillary.
I'm not saying I'll vote for Obama, but I don't think you can may an argument for either of them based on amount of and type of experience.
What is an "obama?"
Is "obama" animal, vegetable, mineral, or some combination?
Can you spread "obama" on toast?
Does "obama" need 120V or 240V?
Would you use an "obama" to hold open a grand piano's lid?
Does "obama" bounce?
If you step in "obama" would you be mad or glad?
Does "obama" go good with scotch?
What does "obama" smell like? Flowers? Pregnant moose urine?
What is the melting point of "obama?" Specific gravity?
Can an "obama" keep carpet from curling?
Would an "obama" look better in the corner or middle of the wall?
Can you use "obama" to get gum out of your hair?
Why can't Obama make his own site?
Why should he have to buy the one this kid made?
Does no one RTFA?
I see lots of comments like the above.
OBAMA DIDN'T MAKE HIS OWN SITE.
He(his campaign people actually) took control of this
guys site & replaced his content with theirs.
Whoever is running the OBAMA campaign, a big cluestick to you.
Anthony needs to be compensated.
You fucking had access to his website.
You fucking STOLE his website.
You want my vote?
MAKE IT RIGHT!
Pay the dude because your THEFT is wrong!!!
Karl Rove is on the line. He wants to know if you'll take a check.
"Extended Network" is like saying he's listed in a phone book. If you've got a MySpace page, and have friends registered, then everyone on MySpace is in your extended network. Think 6-degrees of separation.
Whatever that book is about, it sounds awesome.
If you ever scan it and post it online, please email me! (dave at euri dot ca)
A12A.713 is the root of ASC('evil')
It was actually very refreshing, IMO.
Bush Jr, on the other hand, certainly has the problems of living in a bubble.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
If you vote for me, all your wildest dreams will come true!
Seriously, does anyone not in high school even use MySpace? I guess I'm officially an old fuddy-duddy, because I have never seen the appeal of hideously designed, non-IE browser crashing MySpace pages and the kids who use them.
->
It's a freaking myspace page. Of his 160,000 "friends," how many are over 18? Perhaps 25%? Of those 40,000, how many are registered? Even a quarter of those? I doubt it. Maybe an eighth. So of those 5,000, how many actually care enough to vote? Probably half.
So there's one district of one county of one state, all 'won' because of the "hard work" on myspace. Totally worth... a few cents.
I honestly believe Penn and Teller would be better than anyone who is currently even thinking of running.
Are you crazy? Teller would say something to kill the campaign for sure.
Richardson also has a marvelous foreign policy history. He's nearly on Carter's level when it comes to diplomacy. N. Korea specifically requested that he be the US negotiator because he's so good. He negotiated with Saddam and Cuba before. He's very good at getting back hostages and things like that. He has UN experience. Also, for the environmentally-concerned folks out there, he was Clinton's Secretary of Energy, and he has pushed a lot of energy-saving low-environmental-impact legislation through New Mexico's state government.
I intend to vote for him.
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
As TFA notes, this flap makes everybody look pretty stupid. But no matter how you feel about the Obama campaign or Joe Anthony, why on *earth* did MySpace just pull the URL out from under its owner?
Without that action, this becomes a simple economics problem to sort out between Obama '08 and Anthony: if the campaign wants the product, they pay a price, if they can't agree to a price, they're both on their own. Done and done. Maybe some value is lost, but either way nobody looks like a jerk.
The only thing that makes this story ugly is that Obama '08 requested that MySpace give them Joe Anthony's URL and that, stunningly, MySpace did it. That move leaves Joe Anthony out in the cold, burns 160,000 contacts, makes the campaign look like a bully, and makes it clear to ordinary individuals that spending their time building anything on MySpace is a very bad idea.
MySpace has done something extremely scummy here, and Obama '08 has been stupid enough to use MySpace's scumminess in a way that could bite them badly.
Let's just hope the US press has enough life in it to pick this up and re-empower Joe Anthony in this issue. If that doesn't happen, this is another unfortunate case of an individual's rights being worth less than a corporation's.
As for Obama, he should get personally involved and use his considerable problem-solving abilities to sort this out real quick. Otherwise his campaign's cynical cock-up here is going to do a great job of explicitly contradicting his message of citizen empowerment, blowing his tech-savvy image, and alienating zillions of the young supporters that are now his biggest strength.
No jokes, please
you are buying eyes. Thats trhe value, and frankly 49K is a steal.
Doesn't matter of you worked on it for 2 minutes or 10 years.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
New from Ben & Jerry's. It's just vanilla ice cream with Oreo cookies.
Sorry, sorry! Couldn't resist.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
From your response:
"Extended Network" is like saying he's listed in a phone book. If you've got a MySpace page, and have friends registered, then everyone on MySpace is in your extended network. Think 6-degrees of separation.
From my original post:
I do not have a MySpace account. I have not ever logged in. On this computer, I have all MySpace cookies blocked. That is, I have no network on MySpace. It is not possible that, "Barack is in my extended network".
My new commentary:
Are you sure you're mentally competent to operate a computer? Perhaps you should seek help.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
1. I make a site saying Bob Dylan is the greatest musician ever.
2. Bob likes what I've done and wants to run it.
3. I say I will run it for FREE if he makes me part of the Bob Dylan Web Crew.
4. He doesn't want that, so I ask for a nominal fee for my time, effort, and 160,000 eyes that are interested in Bob Dylan. He refuses to pay what I ask for it.
5. Bob makes his own official site.
6. My Space gives ownership and rights to my work to Bob Dylan.
"And what MySpace page is worth $49k? Seriously..."
any My Space page with 160,000 people of a know demographic and a solid interest in what your selling can be very valuable.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Really not much of a point in talking to someone who already made up their mind, now, is there? Good luck with that.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Because MySpace is lame, it just always says that. Logged in or not. It doesn't change. Ever. No one knows why it's there. Many css "themes" just cover it up with something else.
Well, doing a quick Google search on 'myspace demographics' shows conflicting information. Some pages say that over 75% of the MySpace population is over 18 [1]. Meanwhile, another site is saying over half of MySpace is over thirty five [2]. Even pulling numbers out of my ass (much like you did) and assuming that a significant portion of of the people who show up as over 18 are lying, it still looks like much more than 25% of the "friends" from this page are over 18.
Likewise, looking at US census info shows just about 50% of 18-24 year olds were registered for to vote by November 2004 while around 40% actually voted [3].
So lets do some math with this new data. You said of the 160,000 friends this page had, only around 2500 will actually vote. Of the 160,000 around 120,000 (160,000*.75) are over 18. Of those, the national turnout (again, the US Census) was at around 58% in 2004. 58% of 120,000 is just under 70,000 people who, statistically, will probably vote. At the asking price of $49,000 for the MySpace page, that's less than a dollar a voter - a good buy for any politician.
But lets go a step further and look at just the 18-24 demographic (from links 1 and 2 somewhere around 18% of MySpace). So around 29,000 friends of the 160,000 are 18-24, of which around 40% will actually vote. So over 10,000 friends age 18-24 who will actually vote. That's still only a couple dollars per voter, not bad for a campaign, and ignores all the other voters who are over 24.
Now, I know, I've made a lot of assumptions doing this back-of-the-envelope math: all the data (both about MySpace and about US voters) is accurate, all the MySpace users are in the United States, and trends will continue like they did in the 2004 election. But for all the assumptions that my estimates are high, you could make an equal argument that they're low. That is, you could argue that people registered as friends of Obama are more likely to vote than the population as a whole.
My point is, your original guess (about 2500 who are 18+ and will actually vote out of the original 160,000 friends) seems to be off by 65,000 voters (not registered voters, but people who will vote). In fact, there are more voters out of those 160,000 who are 18-24 than your original guess for all people over the age of 18.
Feel free to correct my math or my assumptions. I had fun doing this, but would someone else come along and correct me than let something incorrect stand.
-Trillian
[1] http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=11967
[2] http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1
[3] http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voti
17,000 on the new official page. Near 160,000 on the old page. http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=us er.viewprofile&friendID=5173909
From allison
Well, doing a quick Google search on 'myspace demographics' shows conflicting information. Some pages say that over 75% of the MySpace population is over 18 [1]. Meanwhile, another site is saying over half of MySpace is over thirty five [2]. Even pulling numbers out of my ass (much like you did) and assuming that a significant portion of of the people who show up as over 18 are lying, it still looks like much more than 25% of the "friends" from this page are over 18.
Likewise, looking at US census info shows just about 50% of 18-24 year olds were registered for to vote by November 2004 while around 40% actually voted [3].
So lets do some math with this new data. You said of the 160,000 friends this page had, only around 2500 will actually vote. Of the 160,000 around 120,000 (160,000*.75) are over 18. Of those, the national turnout (again, the US Census) was at around 58% in 2004. 58% of 120,000 is just under 70,000 people who, statistically, will probably vote. At the asking price of $49,000 for the MySpace page, that's less than a dollar a voter - a good buy for any politician.
But lets go a step further and look at just the 18-24 demographic (from links 1 and 2 somewhere around 18% of MySpace). So around 29,000 friends of the 160,000 are 18-24, of which around 40% will actually vote. So over 10,000 friends age 18-24 who will actually vote. That's still only a couple dollars per voter, not bad for a campaign, and ignores all the other voters who are over 24.
Now, I know, I've made a lot of assumptions doing this back-of-the-envelope math: all the data (both about MySpace and about US voters) is accurate, all the MySpace users are in the United States, and trends will continue like they did in the 2004 election. But for all the assumptions that my estimates are high, you could make an equal argument that they're low. That is, you could argue that people registered as friends of Obama are more likely to vote than the population as a whole.
My point is, your original guess (about 2500 who are 18+ and will actually vote out of the original 160,000 friends) seems to be off by 65,000 voters (not registered voters, but people who will vote). In fact, there are more voters out of those 160,000 who are 18-24 than your original guess for all people over the age of 18.
Feel free to correct my math or my assumptions. I had fun doing this, but would someone else come along and correct me than let something incorrect stand.
-Trillian
[1] http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=11967
[2] http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1
[3] http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voti
If they're pricks as campaign staffers, they'll be prick when it actually matters
Obama needs to spend some time with his campaign, it appears, as if he's bringing these guys to the dance it's time to spend my campaign contributions on a different candidate.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
The unofficial one is the second one down, with 160,000 friends. (If you search for Barack Obama) Currently it can be accessed here.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
That was my point in the first place . . . that it wasn't "Yes Men" but real experts with genuine opinions. Then Mr Dittohead comes out with a whole "he was THE Yes President! He governed by focus group!" diatribe.
What's the point in arguing with that? It's pointless. I run through unpopular ideas he sponsored to prove a point for. . . what exactly? His mind's made up.
If you're legitimately interested in me disproving the baseless "Yes Man!" assertion, here's two of his more controversial (and certainly not focus group firendly) initiatives:
Gays in the military (wasn't this one popular!)
Free trade agreements, specifically signing NAFTA into law. Which is more of a right leaning thing, free trade and whatnot. (As a self described liberal, I lean right on free trade and believe it's important, similarly to Clinton. I'm also pro-fiscal discipline, another of Clinton's wonderful traits. I am also pro-random blow jobs)
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Politics 2.0 has three posts today on this rapidly evolving story. One on TechPresident's coverage: http://hammer2006.blogspot.com.....bamas.html/ one on National Journal The Hotline blog's coverage: http://hammer2006.blogspot.com.....urnal.html/ and one on Joe's email (published on his MySpace page and linked in National Journal story) to TechPresident: http://hammer2006.blogspot.com.....email.html/ Thank you very much. Alex Hammer Politics 2.0
As sad as it is, no one like Obama will get TOO far into political power in the United Racist States of America, especially when every democrat will be voting for Hillary. We need more good 'ole boys anyway, like George Walker Bush!
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
No problem, I was just confused that you restated my points and then called me an idiot. :)
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
160,000 Friends (potential ears, potential voters, potential people who can spread your word). Works out to $3.26 for each of those ears. Is this worth it? I think so.
Obama, or Clinton would be disasters.
Well, that goes without saying...but now that you mention it, it is a given. But mass media is really pushing to keep them out in front, and you can be sure they expect big dividends on their "investment".
What?
"... Except I read it as "Obama's Space Dream"
cf: Mars, Bitches!
Or (direct quote, video): Mars, Bitches!
(but you really should watch the whole "Black Bush"-Episode... great moments in TV history, indeed. Thank you, Mr. Chappelle!
sig? Oh, that sig...
Now that the Digg Revolt is taken care of, time for all those people to find a new cause! Rally up to fight invalid MySpace Profile Takeovers!
You consider this a good thing? He's almost as good as the man who has yet to meet a dictator he didn't like? And in my opinion (for the little it's worth), if a communist dictator is asking for a specific person to negotiate with them, could it be because said dictator knows that they're a pushover?
Nephilium
Ahhh, now that's good info. Thank you!
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Hilary has the problem that she is currently setting herself up as a strong anit-Iraq War candidate when she voted for authorizing the use of force.
She can split hairs all she likes about how that vote wasn't really a vote for going to war (it was - Bush was stridently clear about his intentions), but a lot of anti-war Democrats are not going to simply forgive her on that vote... at least not until she gets through the primaries and is running against a pro-war Republican (which may well be the case, since all three Republican candidates seem to favor ramping up troop levels and oppose time-tables for leaving.)
You really can't talk about state-government legislation experience as something which will provide much of a litmus for what sort of executive Obama will be.
The real surprise in this race is that none of the six candidates are former governors. The only former executive of any sort is the Drag Queen, and you could make the argument that his resume is the lightest of the bunch, depending on how big of a job you consider running NYC to be. (Some would say that it's a bigger deal than being Governor of a small state, but that is open to some debate.)
I'm still hoping for somebody else to throw their hat in the ring. I had high hopes for Tom Vilsack (Democrat Governor from Iowa), but he announced recently that he would not run.
Ron Paul would be great, but I'd be a fool to think he has a real chance.
Tommy Thompson is an intriguing "dark horse". He implemented a Welfare Reform plan in Wisconsin which became a model for the Clinton Administration's plan on the national level. He's far from perfect, but I'd take him over the current crop of leading candidates of either party.
I'm also very tempted to Throw My Vote Away on George Phillies of the LP.
I guess we'll see how things shake out over the next few months...
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I'd like to point to this informative comment.
According to the AC, it's standard MySpace operating procedure to just always say "he's in your extended network." I have neither confirmed nor disproved that assertion, but it seems reasonable, so take my above post with a grain of salt.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Ron Paul for president!
Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!
http://financialpetition.org/
If the vote wasn't for going to war, then voting for a budget with a timetable attached isn't really a vote to end the war. You can't have it both ways.
I don't know if it is or is not a good test, but I don't see how Hillary's additional four years in the US Senate (plus her time as first lady) are so much more significant than his seven years in the state senate. State senate experience is experience. The question is "7 years in the state senate = ??? years in the US Senate". I don't see why you might think that legislative experience is fundamentally different at the federal level versus the state level.
uh, wrong. your analogy is wrong. *real* wrong.
it is like a guy building a bike on his own that advertises my place of business. i don't mind so much, because the bike is cool and i'm getting customers from it.
my business grows and now i want sole control over the bike.
should i expect to get the bike for free?
sound absurd? yup.
an analogy must be similar in key ways or it isn't an analogy.
Some full disclosure where Richardson is concerned is called for.
First, during his tenure as Secretary of Energy the DOE experienced the worst nuclear espionage scandal in its history. And it is well know that the only reason he was not fired from the position was because Clinton was embroiled with the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
As Governor of New Mexico he had accomplished very little (other than attaching his name to too many public buildings), considering that New Mexico has one of the largest cash reserves of any state. New Mexico is second to last in education, one of the most impoverished states in the union, has one of the highest per-capita crime rates, and the largest employer in the state is the state.
During Richardson's tenure California has established the Stem Cell Research Center, moved to increase access to the UC system (one of the best public education systems in the world), and reigned in the pay of UC administrators, just to name a couple of things. Additionally, both California and Massachusetts have made moves towards health care reform. Considering the three most significant challenges facing the US, and New Mexico, are (in no particular order) global competitiveness, the environment, immigration reform, and health care, Governor Richardson has done nothing substantive to address any of these issues while in office.
Richardson is a joke! Simply, it is hard to imagine anyone with political experience could be a worse choice for president.
There is no substitute for a face to face meeting in a situation such as this. Everything was happening quickly and people tried to make rapid decisions with too little dialog. You fly out Joe out, sit down and say, "We love what you're doing but here are our issues." You work it out together and if there is still an impasse, you part at least with an agreement on how you'll proceed to resolve your differences. A cyber shouting match only serves to polarize opposing camps even further. Remember the scene in the movie "Patton," where the Red Army general asks Patton to have a drink with him? Patton tells his interpreter to tell the Soviet general that he "won't drink with him or any other Russian son of a bitch." Reluctantly, the interpreter relays the message, to which the Soviet general responds that Patton too is a son of a bitch. Patton then laughs and says that he'll drink, "one son of a bitch to another." Whether this tale is apocryphal or not, it's a good lesson that politesse is good for politics.
Bill Richardson is the most qualified and most electable candidate we have at this time. Obama, or Clinton would be disasters.
He also picked one of the most anti-abortion supreme court justices as his model justice, and didn't know when Roe v. Wade happened. So basically, the guy is not pro-choice, which kills his chances of ever getting the Democratic Party's nomination.
Getting into the dictator's face and cursing him out is never a good strategy. Both manage to make the dictator feel less "ganged up on" and thus more likely to cooperate. Carter is considered the best negotiator we've had. I wouldn't call Richardson a pushover either. He successfully got hostages back from Iraq, Cuba, and North Korea. He's known by other nation's leaders as the guy who will be able to make a fair deal, instead of being like the French after WWI, the ones who forced heavy & unfair reparationz.
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
I do disagree with your characterization of both Right and Left. . . you characterized both as their enemies would. Which has a chilling effect on the (original) point of party affiliation, which was finding an appropriate answer to the problems we face as a nation (assuming you're a US Citizen).
The appropriate characterization would be the Democrats think that by helping the poor and less fortunate out, the society will benefit as a whole (a rising tide lifts all boats) while the Republicans think it would be better if the poor people just died.
(*tongue firmly in cheek*)
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
And not just from this incident. Am a Chicago resident and even though i can't vote (i am a legal resident), i followed his senate race and later his work at the senate. Since then i have not heard anything much from him, (other than trips to Africa). I had hoped that he would be a fresh voice in the muddy waters of politics. Instead I see time and again how his position in issues (the war, homeland security etc...) is the same as all the rest of the democrats. No real balls, no new ideas, instead giving Bush what he wants. No teeth. Lately on a cable news "debate", all i saw was a smiling guy that had not much to say. But at least a new guy surfaced (even if he is not too young), that at least had the balls and the anger in the belly to tell the truth (even if other people saw it as comical relief). Ex senator Mike Gravel had the guts to voice his discontent with the current crop of politicians running for president. I like what i heard and hope that people that can vote support him. Some one that goes on a budget that is so small that to get around he has to ride in a $25 bus and stayed at a $55 motel is more in touch with the real world than all the other candidates that get $400 hair cuts, or $2800 makeup sessions to go to work. And on top of that Gravel actually critics the current administration and gives alternatives to a lot of issues that are sinking this country to the lowest levels (economic and moral).
By the way, is that a misspelling of Nephilim, the giant half-angelic beings in the Bible?
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
We all know he can afford it. He's got over $35 million. And he's willing to put the tab for health care on the American tax payers. Seems like Obama is only generous when it's not from his own pocket.
To all you people who say that "$50,000 is nothing compared to the $19 million he raised!", you are wrong. If you knew anyone who worked in a movie, they would know. I once worked in a relatively low budget movie, at around $6 million. Every single dollar counted. Every single dollar they saved was money that could be invested in paying for better equipment or more experienced professionals.
You don't have a dollar to waste or give away in good faith, the budget is already super tight as it is. It's tough, sometimes you would love to raise the salary of the people who you're working with, but you just can't afford it. It's not about being evil, its about being realistic.
As a Republican - Bill Richardson is the ONLY Democrat I consider to be a worth opponent... and can handle the troubled times we will be facing in the next decade. And yes, he's 1/2 Mexican. And I still like what he has to say. If it comes down to McCain or Richardson, I'm picking the Dem.
Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
I've seen this thing happen in businss deals that weren't formally structured. Everyone starts out friends, ends up walking around with knives in their back and lawyers on their speed dial.
It profile may have been a labor of love for Anthony, but the campaign is a labor of love for the campaign staff too. Which makes this the worst all possible sutations: a fight over money where money is not really the issue.
This guy decided to spend the money on his own with own. But if they weren't going to give him respect, then they'd damn well better give him his money back. The campaign guys aren't going to give blackmail money or respect to some piss-ant cybersquatter, even though it is a good deal considering the value of the asset in question.
If everything all around had been a labor of greed, things would be much simpler.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Well... an accidental misspelling years ago, which I stuck with for all this time because the handle is almost always available, and it at least looks like it fits the bastardized Latin pluralization rules...
It was really amusing one time when a Jehovah's Witness asked me what my e-mail address was... I think they were the only other person to recognize what it's from...
Nephilium
(See! It's on topic! She asked a question... and I was just answering it!)
I've used it as an online name before because it's the name of an AFI song, my favourite from the first one of their CDs I got.
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
here
If we all send him (Obama) the message, I'm sure he'll "get" it.
I've read Slashdot for the last 5 years, and now I start posting... Go figure
When I first read about Obama's MySpace fight, it looked like Joseph Anthony had been wronged. After all he did create and maintain the MySpace account. Then I noticed the name of the profile. The profile name is not "PasadenaForObama" or "ObamaFans". The profile name is "BarackObama". Anthony knew (or should have known) that his claim to ownership of the profile would always be weak to nonexistent. The amount of time and effort he spent working on the account is irrelevant.
The Obama campaign is not without fault, though. They should have never even solicited a financial offer from Anthony. Instead, the campaign should have offered signed books, buttons, shirts, and a handwritten thank you letter from Obama himself.
As a contributor to the Obama campaign myself, I would have been annoyed to see my cash pay for Obama to purchase his own name. I am disappointed that the Obama campaign made the mistake of solicited an offer, but the bottom line is that Anthony was not wronged.
dna.js
Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
The solution (and I am not happy to say it) is to become ugly, not cowardly. Saddam knew the Shiite extremists well, and his actions were, apart from being disgustingly inhuman, very wise. Read up on them - the sect is entirely political in nature. Every nuance of their theocracy is politically motivated in their own terms. Their very existence is because of conflict over power. If the US army can destroy the shiite militias and al-qaeda branches WITHOUT excessive civilian damage, there will be an opportunity to install a puppet government with at least some peace and therefore gradual improvement. It's the best that can be done. Already the tribal elders are learning that the Americans are the only sane ones on the battlefield, and various sects are now BEGINNING to enlist their sons(previously characterless insurgents) in police forces. Pull this off, and we can withdraw with at least some hope of a reasonable future. But if we leave now, the world will never forget, they will never forgive us.
the concept of getting paid to maintain a MySpace account is a complete mindfuck. At least to me. Are you really supposed to be paid $50,000 for confirming friends and doodling with HTML? Is this really the pinnacle of democratic civilization, the event we've been working towards for millenia? Have we finally as a species figured out how to defy the restrictive, natural order of things that demands work in exchange for food and effectively feed, clothe, and care for ourselves by clicking an "Add" button every once in a while?
WRT to my Dem/Rep crack, it was just a joke (shamefully, stolen). I don't really think the Republicans think poor people should die. (well, Tancredo believes poor Hispanics should die, but that's because he's a racist dick, not because he's a Republican)
Your points are interesting. Can one posit that the meanings of Right and Left have shifted through usage? Not to defend my original statements; I'm more interested in the basic political philosophy than proving my point from above. To restate - has usage/time changed the meaning of Right and Left, and if so, what is the new meaning? This also goes back to media like the Economist - do you believe they're utilizing your definition or a different one?
And as a side note, doesn't Liberalism ultimately fail if it fails to define limits on individual freedoms? Aren't those limits the core of what Right/Left should be about? (assuming we're running with a dualistic sort of idea. . . I realize that's limiting in and of itself but I was raised Christian so dualistic thought habits fall into place naturally)
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
I like the guy for standing for his ideals but:
...
Eliminating a fiat currency for a commodity-backed currency
and
Getting rid of the IRS
That's a little extreme. This is the kind of stuff you see in websites with weird colored fonts of different sizes, centered on the page.
Not that I think it might be a bad thing to have some financial reform, but being so bold will not get him elected and not make him any friends in Washington, which HE WILL NEED.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
The campaign pretended to work with him, until they could screw him over.
I've been waiting for a return poke for over a month!
OH PLEAAASSSSEEE!!!! I live in New Mexico and I will tell you first hand Bill Richardson is a joke! The guy has neglected our state the whole time he has been in office. Our educational system he so proudly declared was his first priority has gone no where, we are still at the bottom five in the US for academic achievement, improvement in scholastic scores, and improving the number of graduates. We are in the top five for drop-outs and teen pregnancy. He pledged to fix the DWI problem here and every time good strong laws are presented he balks and waffles and then refuses to sign them leaving us with arguably the highest rate of DWI's and drunk driving deaths in the US. Most every leathal DWI accident here involves someone with between 8-15 DWI's on their record....yeah our laws here suck that bad. You know what his big solution to our DWI problem was? He spent millions of tax payer dollars for URINAL CAKES! The urinal cakes when pissed on activate a little audio recording of his voice saying "You drink, you drive, you lose". We had a huge corruption scandal involving government kick backs for corporate contracts and it involved nothing but Democrates and he waffled on the whole mess and allowed the case to fall apart because the trail was leading to him. Speaking of corruption, he supported the U.S. Attorney General when he went before a congressional hearing on the sole purpose that he was Hispanic! Not that he thought he was innocent but because he was Hispanic and he feels Hispanics should stick together no matter what. Worst of all, we have a story that broke here about him being a voratious drinker going to various bars in Santa Fe getting smashed and sexually harassing the female wait staff. The women tried to level charges against him and were unsuccessful so they went to the newspapers and when the story broke Bill Richardson's people put the squeeze on the media outlets and they dropped the story altogether. This is the worst guy for the job as President! God help us if he gets into office....I would choose Mary Carey for election before voting for Bill Richardson.
Reality is for people that can't handle drugs. So do your part, just say no to reality!
Charting the number of MySpace friends of the candidates since March http://swivel.com/graphs/show/12874490
If the vote wasn't for going to war, then voting for a budget with a timetable attached isn't really a vote to end the war. You can't have it both ways.
I never said it wasn't, in fact, I'll go on the record right now and say that it is.
So I'm not trying to have it both ways. Stop trying to change the subject.
I don't know if it is or is not a good test, but I don't see how Hillary's additional four years in the US Senate (plus her time as first lady) are so much more significant than his seven years in the state senate. State senate experience is experience. The question is "7 years in the state senate = ??? years in the US Senate". I don't see why you might think that legislative experience is fundamentally different at the federal level versus the state level.
Well, legislative experience is not a good litmus to begin with. It's impossible to be a good US Senator without some spirit of compromise, and it's very difficult to survive the nomination process without being able to show yourself as committed to the core principals of your party. That's why Republicans were so lukewarm about Bob Dole as a Presidential candidate even though he was one of the party's greatest champions when he was a leader in the Senate.
That said, state-level legislative experience, is worth even less.
Americans feel they already know who Senator Clinton is (for better or worse). Obama is an unknown, and furthermore he's an unknown with no executive experience and precious little legislative experience at the federal level.
It's very easy for Obama to say Iraq was a bad idea. He was never part of the decision-making process when it all started. Kucinich can show that he voted against PATRIOT and Iraq, and Hilary must explain to the left why she voted for them, but Obama was probably debating Midway & O'Hare airport noise-reduction plans or sewage-system bonding bills or what-not at the time. He doesn't have much of a record of tackling Big Issues to show off (or run away from.) That's my main point about him.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I did not intend to imply that you were. I was pointing out that Hillary's statement (if you agree with it) logically implies something else that would reflect negatively on her.
Americans may feel that way, but we are wrong. Prior to her election to the Senate, she was certainly famous, but no more experienced than Arnold was prior to becoming the Governator. New Yorkers didn't really know what they were getting when they elected her, and none of us really know what we would be getting if she were elected President. The question is, who do you want to gamble the countries future on?
So, Obama as President is a gamble as well. It all comes back to personal opinions. All I can say is, since the day she became First Lady, most of the things Hillary has done have made me respect her less*. Most of the things I have learned about Barrack Obama have made me respect him more.
* No, I'm not including the things Bill has done. I only blame Hillary for the things she personally does.
What could you possibly have learned about Obama at this point, beyond the fact that he's a good speaker and a relatively well-liked freshman Senator?
That's my whole point. He looks GREAT right now compared to anybody with experience because he's an empty slate.
Hilary Clinton is not exactly brimming over with experience, but she has cast votes on a lot of major policy decisions (and authored or co-authored some bills) which give you a record to judge her on (for good or bad.) Anybody with such experience is going to have a few "negatives" that a fresh face like Obama will not... but come debate season people like that tend to get a little exposed. That's why I'm not completely convinced he's as much of a threat to Clinton as people make him out to be. There are several Democrats which I would consider much more capable challengers, if they had Obama-like money behind them.
That's the other thing about Obama I find troubling. Much like Governor Bush back in 1999, he's The Anointed One. Regardless of experience or proven leadership, it's obvious (from the fact that he was made a keynote convention speaker when he was still a total nobody) that certain powers-behind-the-throne decided long ago that they were going to prop this guy up and make something of him. My opinion of the Bush Administration's performance is somewhat mixed, but I'm extremely wary of the prospect of 8 (or even 4) more years of a lightweight, pre-fab "leader" in the White House. Bush at least was a two-term governor. Obama is like getting a left-wing Bush with less (as in zero) executive experience.
Give me somebody who doesn't need to rely on his VP candidate to give the ticket "gravitas". Is that so much to ask?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Here in the Chicago-area, he's been a household name since early in his Senate campaign. I'm certain the Chicago media is biased, but I don't think you should blindly assume that I have learned nothing over the past 4 years.
I'm not going to debate the "first impressions" of the candidates. I'm just saying that some tend to do and say things that make me respect them more, and others do the opposite. I believe I'm entitled to my opinions.