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."
I agree, it sure looks to me like McCain is going to be our next president. Obama's preacher is a racist, a white person voting for him would be like a black person voting for a white man whose preacher is a Klansman.
Hillary is just plain unlilkeable, taking votes away, even Democrat votes. Most Republicans hate her (because of her husband, who IMO was a good President esp. in comparison to our present Oil Baron Traitor in Chief) and won't vote for her, and I for one don't like her because her husband gave her the job of instituting national health care like the civilized world has and she botched it.
Myself, I'll be voting either Green or Libertarian, depending on who's on the ballot in Illinois. Mine will be a protest vote against our Corporate-owned government. We, the people, have been left out of the loop for far too long.
That said, there are a lot of seventy two year olds who ARE computer literate; I've met some. I gather there are a few on slashdot with low UIDs. I don't know about McCain but judging someone's computer literacy by their age is pretty ignorant.
BTW, I turn 56 next week.
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
A nice idea but to stop the inevitable trolling you're going to need some decent moderation. But then you'll probably get risk averse moderators taking down potentially inflammatory comments who will then be criticized for stifling free speech. And then when the people who might want to join in hear that free speech is being stifled over at opengov.com they'll come to /., and similar sites, in their hoards to moan about how repressive their government has become. Flame wars will be inevitable. /. will seize up, I'll have to go back to work. It's just another no-win situation.
I find the entire idea of creating a wired democracy to be revolting. The best government is seen in its effects and not heard. I don't want to think about government or politics in my day to day existence and would much rather just have the professionals that I elect get on with the business of governing competently. I don't want big crusades - I've had enough crusades with Bush. When I elect a President and a Congress, I don't want them asking me my opinion every 30 seconds. I want to know that they thought through the issues and made the best decisions they could, kept the army in powder, the navy afloat, the planes in the air, the satellites working, the bridges up and the roads in good repair. If it turns out that they do something that I politically don't agree with, I can -actually live with that-, so long as they bring a general air of competence to the table.
This is my sig.
Unfortunately, whenever politicians start talking about "the will of the people" (see 2000,2002,2004,2006 election results) thats a sign we're moving away from a Republic. When candidates want 51% of the country to rule over the 49% thats a sign we're moving from a Republic to a demagogy. That's what scares me the most about the Obama/Edwards populism is that they are trying to use the power of the mob to gain power. The one thing that makes me fear the end of American dominance is the rise of a demagogue, and the attitude that we can't move forward until everyone else catches up. The one example I can really think of for this is that Obama wants to "delay" the manned spaceflight plans by 5 years in order to increase funding to education. To me that's no better than Caesar buying bread for all the paupers in Rome.
Even if it didn't absorb into your psyche, and you truly weren't racist, why would you continue to attend the church? It would be like not being racist, but attending the KKK meetings because you liked the way you looked in the uniform. I really don't see any reason for attending a church where you don't agree with their philosophies. Attending a church that tells you to hate whitey every week when you actually aren't racist wouldn't be all that enjoyable.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Do you really think Wright "spews it every day and with clear design"? Many of the most damning quotes attributed to him have turned out to be taken out of context.
I'm not saying he hasn't said some bad things, but Wright's views have been heavily exaggerated for political reasons.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Boy, you said it and demonstrated it. I take serious issue with your explanation of how far left and right the three candidates you discussed are. I'd bet $50 you are a conservative and/or republican, just by the fact that you labeled all three candidates as liberal to some degree.
Honestly, I think that all this talk of McCain being moderate or a democrat in republican clothing is just a thinly veiled attempt to attract conservative leaning Democrats who feel guilty about voting for a republican. I only hope that most people will see through this game. McCain is a conservative, republican, plain and simple. I was ready to vote for him over Gore in 2000 when he stood up for his principles and told the religious right to shove it. Since then, he's gone over to the dark side and has cow-toed to all sorts of religious right nut jobs. He lost my support when he gave the commencement speech at Liberty University:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/5/14/142724.shtml
Look at his positions for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_McCain
1, 2, 3, 4, 5... That's the combination on my luggage!
However, as a conservative, I can tell you that McCain is NOT. Show me a bill that has McCain's name on it that conservatives agree with. McCain/Feingold? Nope. McCain/Kennedy? Nope. McCain/Lieberman? Nope. How about McCain's views? McCain on torture? Nope. McCain on the border? Nope. Sorry, John McCain is not a conservative. Sure, he is a Republican and shares many views with Republicans, but for the most part, he is not a conservative.
From your own Wiki link: McCain, as a former POW, has been recognized for his sensitivity to the issue of the detention and interrogation of detainees from the War on Terror. On October 3, 2005, McCain introduced the McCain Detainee Amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill for 2005. On October 5, 2005, the United States Senate voted 90-9 to support the amendment.[20] The McCain Detainee Amendment was commonly referred to as the Amendment on (1) the Army Field Manual and (2) Cruel, Inhumane, Degrading Treatment, amendment #1977 and also known as the McCain Amendment 1977. It became the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 as Title X of the Department of Defense Authorization bill. The amendment prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners, including prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, by confining interrogations to the techniques in FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation.
McCain has also said in an interview that he would "immediately close Guantanamo Bay, move all the prisoners to Fort Leavenworth and truly expedite the judicial proceedings in their cases".[21] McCain has historically emphasized deficit reduction over tax cuts. The contrast with George Bush's preference for tax cuts was prominent during the 2000 presidential campaign,[30] and after Bush became president McCain opposed his tax cut proposals. On May 23, 2005, McCain was one of fourteen Senators to forge a compromise on the Democrats' use of the judicial filibuster, thus eliminating the need for the Republican leadership's attempt to implement the so-called "nuclear option" (also known as the "constitutional option"). McCain's stances on global warming and other environmental issues have put him at odds with the Bush administration and other Republicans.[57] He has also stated opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and his voting record generally reflects this. McCain is a member of The Republican Main Street Partnership and supports embryonic stem cell research despite his earlier opposition.[88] He states that he believes that stem cell research, and indeed embryonic stem cell research, will continue whether or not the U.S. sanctions it, and so it would be the wisest course of action to support it to the extent that the United States will be able to regulate and monitor the usage. So, maybe compared to YOU, John McCain is a NeoCon, but he's barely right of center when compared to the rest of the nation. He's a flippin liberal compared to most "true" conservatives.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Obama is the furthest to the left. He is the most liberal of the bunch.
Lets leave off discussing the obviously twisted use of the word "liberal" as an ad hominum slur and get to your assertion that Obama is more liberal than Clinton.
Specifically which policies are more liberal? Please feel free to define what you mean by "liberal" and use examples. If you are up for a constructive discussion, throw in the "conservative" policy alternative and describe why it is better. For the sake of the argument I'll define "liberal" as "wants more federal government involvement" and "conservative" as "wants less federal government interference".
Lets do a quick policy comparison between HRC & BHO based on those definitions:
1. Health Care - Similar plans to provide near-universal insurance coverage, but not true Socialized Medicine, ala Canada or England (consider their systems "most liberal" on health care). Major difference is that Obama's emphasizes cost cutting and allows people to not opt in if they don't need the coverage. Clinton's plan mandates everyone covered or are fined. Clinton= +1LP (Liberal Point).
2. Economy -
2a. Mortgage crisis: Clinton wants to freeze subprime lending rate increases on existing loans, have a 90 day moratorium on foreclosures, and a direct payout of bailout money to borrowers through the states. Obama wants mix of direct borrower bailouts and Mortgage Revenue Bonds to lenders for refinancing. Both want to spend $30B. Score Clinton as more liberal since her plan doesn't try to help the lenders. Clinton = +2LP, Obama = +1LP
2b. Income Taxes: Both support increased taxes on "the wealthy". Clinton wants $650M in assistance to working families for emergency energy assistance. Obama wants $500M in tax relief to working families, and immediate $75B payout to 150M qualifying citizens, similar to Bush's current payout scheme. So, Clinton= +2LP, Obama= +2LP, Bush= +1LP.
2c. Social Security: Clinton wants to add a govenment run 401k with tax incentives for contributing. Obama wants automatic workplace pension plans with 50% match on first $1k for families earning under $75k. Obama wants to eliminate taxes on social security drawing seniors making less than $50k/year. Obama wants to remove the $97k cap on social security taxes to secure fund for the future. Clinton= +1LP, Obama= +2LP
2d. Corporate Taxes: Clinton would scale back corporate subsidies by $55B and invest $50B of that in a strategic energy fund. Obama wants to lower ordinary American's taxes by $80-$85 billion by closing corporate loopholes for oil and gas companies and cracking down on international tax havens. Clinton= -1LP, Obama= -2LP (They get negative values here for REMOVING GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN BUSINESS and FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY).
2e. Trade- Both want to renegotiate pieces of NAFTA to help American manufacturing and competetiveness. Both want to increase regulation of quality of goods coming into US (no lead paint toys, etc). Clinton= +1LP, Obama= +1LP
3. Education - Both want increases in tax credits for college tuition. Both want to address problems with unfunded mandates and No Child Left Behind, both want to address teacher retention and teacher training, both want to help at the family level with pre-K and K-12 education, and so on. They both have extensive and intrusive plans. Lets give them both the same rating. Clinton= +3LP, Obama= +3LP
4. Energy & Environment - Both link their energy and environment plans together. Both want to double current basic energy research funding. Both want to promote development of "green" energy technologies and increased fuel economy. Both want to limit growth of America's "carbon footprint". Obama's plan emphasises technology development, including clean coal development. Clinton's is mixed between policy and technology development, but lacks the detail of Obama's plan. Both want to invest heavily in development of domestic "gr
"These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon
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!" ?
If you're wondering whether Obama's enthusiasm for the Internet and technology goes beyond "hip and in touch", you might consult Lawrence Lessig's endorsement of him. And after reading Obama's tech paper, I can't say I think any other candidate's compares even in showing awareness of issues.
That said, the fact that I see the net strongly leveraged elsewhere -- including Paul's rather impressive campaign -- makes me *less* jaded about the increasing use of social networking. Nor do I think it's really surprising or affected: to some extent, all politics is (among other things) organizing. Real-world social networks were a huge part of politics before social networks came to the web, it's a completely natural fit now that's here. So to one degree or another, *everybody* is using it. I think part of the reason Paul stands out in his use is his unfortunate and somewhat unfair uphill battle in traditional media -- he really didn't have anywhere else to go.
Now, I'd agree it sometimes seems Obama is using this tool more heavily and talking more about his use of tools than anyone else in the field other than Paul. But I think to the extent that's true, it's largely because up until the last 4 years of his political career, organizing has been a big part of what he does -- his start, for goodness sake, was as a community organizer. It really does appear he has a philosophy that includes bottom-up organization as a component of well-balanced politics. And what the social networking tools do that's new to politics is increase the reach and efficiency of that kind of organizing. They only marginally bolster the traditional political networks, but they're a huge boost at the grassroots level, especially the more you know about grassroots organizing.
I also would agree that not all candidates are created equal on the tech-friendly front, however. In particular, McCain has some issues with not fighting the internet, and while Clinton might have some good progressive impulses regarding it, I don't trust her not to throw it under a bus if some other "expediency" arises.
So while I'm sometimes a bit disappointed we didn't get a race like Obama vs Paul -- one that I think would have essentially signaled a real end to business as usual and a significant shift to digital politics -- I still think Obama stands out as an evolutionary step in the right direction, if not the Paul revolution.
One other thing about a part of the premise of the post ("Hey general public, I'm Obama and unlike the other candidates, I'm hip and in-touch with the current generation! Vote for me!"). This isn't necessarily directed at the poster I'm responding to, but I'm noticing a high degree of frequency in attacks on Obama that are essentially "Sure he SEEMS great, but SEEMING isn't the same things as BEING great and we just don't know what's REALLY behind HIM!" To some extent, I don't blame people for thinking this way. We've been let down pretty severely by quite a bit of our political leadership recently. And it's hard to really know whether what you know about a candidate is image or fact.
But I also think the time for this kind of talk about Obama is past. He's been in the spotlight for a while, there's plenty of material available about him and written by him to get genuinely familiar with the substance of his history and positions. I don't have a problem with people arguing about what they don't like about Obama's stated policies, or a vote he made in the past. But at this point, anybody bringing up this kind of "we don't KNOW" or "he's all STYLE and TALK" rehtoric isn't bringing up an insightful point, they're showing their own need to do homework. Or, in some cases, acting with ulterior motives.
Tweet, tweet.