Slashdot Mirror
The Coming Digital Presidency
Ranjit Mathoda writes "Marc Andreeson, the cofounder of Netscape, met Senator Barack Obama in early 2007. Mr. Andreeson recalls, "In particular, the Senator was personally interested in the rise of social networking, Facebook, Youtube, and user-generated content, and casually but persistently grilled us on what we thought the next generation of social media would be and how social networking might affect politics — with no staff present, no prepared materials, no notes. He already knew a fair amount about the topic but was very curious to actually learn more." As a social organizer and a lover of new technologies, Mr. Obama could be expected to make good use of such tools in getting elected, and he has done so. What may not be as obvious is that Mr. Obama appears to have a keen interest in using such technologies in the act of governing. And whether Mr. Obama becomes president, or Mrs. Clinton or Mr. McCain do, these new tools have the potential to transform how government operates."
My initial thought (however cynical it may come across?) is: Is this really just another plea of "Hey general public, I'm Obama and unlike the other candidates, I'm hip and in-touch with the current generation! Vote for me!" ?
The candidate I saw leveraging the power of the Internet the most, early in this election, was Ron Paul -- and it looked like most people just used it to smear the guy. EG. "Nobody but spammers and a few computer geeks with loud mouths care about him!"
Yes, the future of politics has much to do with the Internet as a communications medium. Unfortunately, the majority of people using it as a "primary" source of information and content is the younger generation. Folks (like my parents and all of their friends) who are retirement age voters, by contrast, generally pay NO attention to a speech given over YouTube, or what a candidate posts on a FaceBook or MySpace page. And the 40-something and 50-something crowd? It's a "mixed bag" right now. Some are very "net-savvy", while a good percentage of others write it off as "the computer stuff my kids are into".
I think you've got to let a few more election years come and go in this country before the MAJORITY of voters will really be "on-board" with the Internet as their information source, vs. traditional media like television, newspapers and radio.
Pretty silly to impute the remarks of another onto a candidate. Do we even need to look at the things the religious right has said that John McCain embraces? Remember back in the last election when McCain wanted nothing to do with them?
I was thinking the exact same thing. The only problem is, what is everyone else's reaction?
Personally I think nothing has changed. Almost everyone who liked Obama before they heard the preacher still likes him. And everyone who didn't like Obama before still don't like him. I doubt a huge segment of the population has changed their minds about any of the candidates.
Developers: We can use your help.
This US is a republic, not a popular democracy. The American founders were well deeply concerned with the possibility of mob government - hence (for example) the Senate, the Electoral College, and our system of checks and balances. (Yes, a gross simplification, but this is my lunch break.) The Founders were afraid of the mob for good reason. So should we.
The idea of using Facebook, MySpace, and Digg as instruments of government is, in some ways, breathtakingly foolish. Reading the content on Digg - full of conspiracy theories, slander, and bigotry - seems reminiscent of the chants of a mob, not the (theoretically desired) reasoned vox populi.
The anonymity of the Internet, combined with the speed of activity on the Web, seems to lead in many cases to an amplification of our baser instincts. Do we want our political leaders receiving input from commercial Web sites, with no means of identifying who or what is promoting certain causes?
For months Digg was filled with article after article promoting the merits of Dr. Ron Paul, the coming Messiah who will Redeem America. After Dr. Ron Paul, savior, left the race we have the new and exciting stage of articles promoting the merits of Senator Obama, the Messiah who will Redeem America. True, their could be an upswell of support from individual users, but are we perhaps seeing an organized campaign(s) manipulating Web 2.0 sites for their own purposes? With anonymity of site users, who can tell?
I've watched as the social media sites race to extremes. The load, most obnoxious writers gain the most attention; well reasoned arguments are often more dull and are ignored. Debates on sites such as Daily Kos revert on a daily base to name calling, ad hominen attacks, and sheer bloody-mindedness. Is this how we want our leaders to be influenced? In many cases on Daily Kos you'll see the same author online throughout the entire day, every day writing "diaries" and defending their positions. Who the hell are these people? How can they afford to avoid work to write their blog entries? Are those who use FaceBook a representative sample of the population, or the young, hip, and independently wealthy?
Social Media sites dramatically lower the costs of individual citizens involvement in the political process. That's a Good Thing. Yet if we don't anticipate and accept the manipulation of those sites by external agencies and those with far too much time on their hands, we're bloody damn fools.
/* Dang, I can't type that well. */
I've been voting since 1976 and only rarely wanted the candidate that I voted for to win more than I've wanted the the competition to lose. In the last election Kerry didn't interest me at all, but I voted for him anyway because I liked Bush a whole lot less.
Maybe it's time to vote for the candidate that we actually want. Only then will the third party candidates have a chance at winning.
Agreed! There is no way in hell I would vote for Obama's preacher for President.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Not really. Robertson and Falwell seem to have a lot of sway with many high ranking Republicans. And they actively and successfully affect policy. Farrakhan and Wright have had little or no affect on policy. They also hold no influence within the Democratic party. At worst Wright might affect one Democrat, while the religious right affects the entire Republican party.
Developers: We can use your help.
Obama's preacher isn't a racist. He went too far with "God damn America" (in one speech), but what he said was "God damn America so long as it's killing innocent people all the time", which is actually what any decent preacher who believes in damnation (they're all supposed to) would have to say. Because that's what the religion says.
There's absolutely no equation of Obama's preacher to a klansman. Klansmen are sick bastards joining a secret society with an unbroken tradition of universal hate (except for worshiping an imaginary idol of a White supremacy that almost ripped the country in half and destroyed it). Klansmen are murders, arsonists, rapists, and traitors, who demand the genocide and enslavement of the entire world, except a few people who look like them (but women are property).
Obama's preacher is a guy who sometimes shouts about racial and social injustice, and demands... that America stop killing innocent people, stop persecuting the Black community, face the fact that Hillary Clinton isn't in touch with the hardest problems many Americans face because of their race. Sure, he can get jerky and obnxious about it, and even be wrong about some of the injustices - and even more wrong failing to admit how much persecution of American Blacks is perpetuated inside the Black community, not by "Whitey". But he's got a right to be wrong. Hell, he's a preacher - he stands up every week to insist people do things because an imaginary supernatural force says so - his whole gig is unprovable, so he's going to be wrong sometimes. But what does he demand we do about it? He demands that we are compassionate, that we take care of one another, that we're honest about how we hurt each other, and that we do better.
Not what we reject from klansmen, even if we disagree with him, or offended by him.
Meanwhile, George Bush has sent us to war in Iraq and against "Terror" by invoking his own crackpot Christian ideas of Israel's sacrificial role in the "Rapture". He claims "God" told him to invade Iraq. He's actually lying, stealing and killing people in Jesus' name. McCain has relentlessly sought the endorsement of some of the most sick "Christian" preachers in America. Like Jerry Falwell before Falwell just died, even though McCain had earlier rejected Falwell as a crazyman when Falwell was endorsing Bush against McCain. But after Falwell and Pat Robertson blamed "gays, feminists, abortionists, the ACLU" for making "God" send us the 9/11/2001 attacks, McCain eagerly pursued their endorsements and kneeled at their feet. McCain went after endorsements from "reverends" John Hagee and Rod Parsley, who preach crazy "Left Behind" hatred of anyone not fitting their definition of "Christian" - like Catholics, whose church he says is a "whore", a direct agent of the devil. Hoping for those other people to burn alive in the streets, endorsing the widespread massacre of "sinners" by gangs of "Christians" trying to score their way into heaven when the Rapture leaves them behind for not having been sufficiently hateful in the "near-End Times". These people want global murder, actual apocalypse, and will pressure a president who listens to them to hand out nukes to maniacs in the Mideast to "bring it on".
Even the popular Billy Graham, who's had the ear of every president since Nixon, is a racist and antisemit who used to laugh it up with Nixon (and surely the rest, but off-tape) about what to do about the "problem" with those non-WASPs.
Clinton isn't much better, worshiping for years with "The Fellowship" (or "The Family"), a gender-segregated prayer group that's mostly secret, but includes some of
--
make install -not war
You mean like all the Catholics who are uncomfortable or downright unhappy with the Catholic church's stance on contraception (including condoms in AIDS-ridden Africa), homosexuality, and protecting child-molesting priests through many decades of the 20th Century? While I've known some who left the church, I have also known some who stayed despite their personal disagreements with church policy because they didn't want to leave the community of the church. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if there are a high proportion of people who were molested as children by Catholic priests who are still members of the church in spite of being molested, and yet who don't feel that doing so supports child molestation. Should Ted Kennedy or other Catholic congressmen be expected to support child molestation, abstinence-only STD prevention, and other stupidity because the head of the Catholic church has, either explicitly or tacitly, condoned the same?
The last two Popes' actions and words have been responsible for numerous deaths and broken lives, something that I doubt can be said for the Reverend Wright. Both have also been responsible for some good works.
I might be cognitive dissonance: you wind up ignoring the bad things about someone because they don't match up with the world view promoted by the good things, and you prefer to trust in the good things. Or it might be the crazy old uncle who becomes more intolerant over time who you vehemently disagree with but choose not to upset too much because he was good to you when you were younger. In the end you have to judge Obama by what he does and says rather than what one or two individuals around him say. Should Jesus be judged by Judas' actions?
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Exactly. The blowing up of this by the media, and the subsequent word-of-mouth, is fucking bullshit. I watched the entire sermon in which those things were said, and taken in context, it was a good message and, while maybe not family-friendly in language and content, was an appropriate underlying lesson to hear at a church. If I remember correctly, the right to speak out against (or even act against) unjust acts of the government was one of the founding principles of this country - this is all Rev. Wright was doing. I'm white, I'm American, and I have no problem with what he said - seriously, just go watch the whole sermon, it's on YouTube.
Just because an older black man who grew up having to sit at the back of the bus still has the mindset that America is racist against blacks (and yes, it still is, but obviously not like back then), and speaks his mind about it, he's racist against whites now? And because he condemns the acts of the Israeli government against Palestine he's an anti-semite? People need to do their research and stop listening to Rush Limbaugh (he actually has the audacity to call Wright a "racist, poison-spewing hate-monger" when he has to have seen the whole sermon.)
What the hell is wrong with people? They don't want a president who's willing to listen to the views of someone who thinks there's some problems with racism in America? They don't want a president who's willing to listen to the views of someone who's not totally happy with everything in America, and says something about it? Remember, he repudiated Wright's more abrasive comments, but in a show of good character, didn't abandon the man. And I believe one of the founding fathers said something to the effect of, "the greatest patriots of this country are those who are willing to question it." (I don't remember exact words or who it was, that's a paraphrase.)
WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
Why do you think Hillary is so experienced? Because she was married to the President? Because she was shot at in Bosnia? Oh wait, that's right she lied. You wanna know why people walk away from her. Listen to the news. She acts as though she is entitled to this presidency. She acts as though she is the only one who can do the job and Obama is like some teenager in over his head. Sorry to point this out but Hillary is a jr. senator as well. She has been around for a while but just being there does not give one experience. Just because I sit next to the storage admins at work does not mean I am an experienced storage administrator. I understand what they talk about and understand NAS and SANs but I am still NOT an experienced storage admin until I work as a storage admin.
As for the whole Wright thing...... Thanks AaronW (33736)
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/
All points of time and space are connected.
Why do you see experience as such a positive? Almost no one was more experienced than Dick Cheney and members of the cabinet. Where did that get us?
Intent is far more important than experience. A good leader will bring people into his or her circle who are more knowledgeable and more experienced. They are then leveraged to make intelligent choices. Obama's lack of experience in the Senate has almost nothing to do with how well he will run the office of the President.
Developers: We can use your help.