I have effectively dubbed the 2008 presidential election “The Facebook Election.” Facebook was just a little website in 2004, (and then it was only for college students), and the old school and style of politics still reigned supreme. But that was four years ago, which could be a lifetime in political years. Democratic nominee Barack Obama has smashed all previous fundraising records. One statistic has cited that 3.1 million people have contributed to his campaign. I think it’s a safe guess that most of that money came from online donations. The phenomenon of facebook and other social networking sites have effectively ushered in a new era of political activism.
Political pundits have cited that John McCain may be the last candidate ever to take the government matched funds for the general election. Yet another strategy from the old way of thinking in politics. If the Y generation and beyond want to support a candidate, it’s as easy as logging on, and with a few simple clicks, they can join bumper sticker groups like “International Talk Like Sarah Palin Day,” or “Polar Bears for Obama/Biden.” These 'bumper sticker' groups are this election's "I like Ike." These networking sites may prove to be a valuable and centralized resource for political campaign organizers and volunteers.
Voters can encourage others to vote with their status update, or spread the word about a fundraiser or event in a user-friendly format. A supporter of a candidate wouldn't have to know computer jargon and how to paste website codes, they just use a format already posted for them. It could be argued that networking sites are aiding the democratic process- by letting more people have a voice in an election. These sites have become a new form of canvassing, GOTV, and political PR all wrapped in one neat package, with a red, white and blue bow.
User generated sites can also spark new specific sub-groups of political supporters, like “Authors and Book Lovers for Obama/Biden 2008.” Just another point of strategy that campaign organizers can use to target voters, the demographic information is right in front of them in the form of group membership. The new political game has been established by a new generation of political junkies and interested voters alike. So heads up to future (and current) candidates: Log on, tap in, or loose. Much like the 1960's televised debates, political front liners must exploit this new medium if they are to win elections.
I’m already friends with Nebraska’s 2nd district House contender Jim Esch and Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy.
------------------------------------------------------
On a last random note: Tomorrow I am going to go see Hillary Clinton in the morning and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) in the afternoon. Hurray!
-Nebraska Blues
Monday, October 20, 2008
One of the most inspirational moments for me in the presidential campaign has been Colin Powell's explanation of his support for Barack Obama on Meet The Press (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_NMZv6Vfh8). Please watch this clip, if you have not seen it already. Powell very eloquently described the wrong turn the Republican party has made and continues to make in focusing primarily on one sector of the country - small town, blue collar communities. As if that is the only group they see as American or as necessary to understand. On the other hand, Obama has worked hard to reach out to all the different types of groups that make up our country, certainly as part of the campaigning process but also because of his own intellectual curiosity and desire to be inclusive.
Powell made a good point that at the McCain/Palin rallies where Obama has been called a Muslim, neither McCain nor Palin have pointed out that being a Muslim is not a crime, which seems to me even more important than whether Obama is or isn't a Muslim. Instead of encouraging people to embrace other Muslims and not assume they are all terrorists, the McCain campaign has only used existing ignorance and fears to link Obama to a domestic terrorist from the 1960s who Obama barely has any link to and who McCain claims he doesn't care about anyway.
It's incredibly refreshing to listen to someone from the Republican party speak without hatred and with sincere concern for how our leaders conduct themselves. I encourage you all to watch it!
Powell made a good point that at the McCain/Palin rallies where Obama has been called a Muslim, neither McCain nor Palin have pointed out that being a Muslim is not a crime, which seems to me even more important than whether Obama is or isn't a Muslim. Instead of encouraging people to embrace other Muslims and not assume they are all terrorists, the McCain campaign has only used existing ignorance and fears to link Obama to a domestic terrorist from the 1960s who Obama barely has any link to and who McCain claims he doesn't care about anyway.
It's incredibly refreshing to listen to someone from the Republican party speak without hatred and with sincere concern for how our leaders conduct themselves. I encourage you all to watch it!
Friday, October 3, 2008
Chuck Hagel is a class act
Yesterday Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) gave his final speech on the floor of the Senate. He has served for twelve years, and decided not to run for reelection this year.
Senator Hagel's speech was both a response to the Senate's vote on the bailout package, and a farewell address. Hagel had the freedom to say anything he wanted; the Senate had already passed the bill, which he supported, and he is not running for reelection---he had the chance to say exactly what he thought, without concern for political backlash.
By the time Hagel spoke, the Chamber was nearly empty; the vote had concluded, and few Senators remained. It is a shame, because Hagel's speech was one of the eloquent and insightful I have heard by a politician in office.
Hagel said the bailout bill was an example of bipartisan partnership for the good of the American people. He said the future of the United States depends on the ability of both parties to work together: "Without that bipartisan consensus, we end up in the underbrush of political paralysis," said Hagel. "Much of what we've seen, unfortunately, has been about political paralysis. We all have to take some responsibility for that."
He went on to say [I am paraphrasing here; the full-text of the speech is not yet available online, but I will link to it as soon as it is] that the distrust of the first bailout bill by the American people was the result of years of governance without transparency; that the American people are suspicious of legislation rushed through Congress when their leadership has failed to explain their own positions, and that Congress has not done enough to exert it's Constitutionally ensured power.
"Article one of the Constitution is about Congress. We are a co-equal branch of government," said Hagel. "If anything I've learned in the 12 years I've been here it is the importance of sharing, participating in the governance of our country, being part of that governance, helping make decisions with the president and the executive."
Hagel has been vociferous in his criticism of the Bush administration. He has talked about the lack of transparency, and also the administration's disregard for the powers of the other two branches of government. He was an early critic of the administration's handling of the war in Iraq, and cosponsored a resolution in the Senate with Joe Biden in January 2007 opposing the increase of troop levels in Iraq: "This is a ping-pong game with American lives. These young men and women that we put in Anbar province, in Iraq, in Baghdad are not beans. They're real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we're doing - all of us - before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder. We better be as sure as you can be.”
The resolution passed the Senate, but the Bush administration said it would disregard the non-binding resolution, and proceed with their plan to send more troops to Iraq. Hagel responded eloquently:
Chuck Hagel is a lifelong Republican; he was given two Purple Hearts for his service in the Vietnam War, and has served the people of Nebraska for twelve years. His final speech on the floor of the Senate was a dignified finale, to what was, all too uncommonly, dignified service. With it, came an important reminder to whomever heads the next administration; the Constitution calls for a balance of power---the checks and balances upon which the foundation of our democracy rests. In the wake of a turbulent week in Washington, we should all spend some time thinking about what it means for a presidential administration to "go rogue", and disregard even the voices of sanity within it's own party.
Senator Hagel decided not to run for reelection; this is a real loss to the Senate, but an even bigger loss to the Republican party, which has fractured and whose members are seemingly desperately trying to distance themselves from the Bush administration. One can only hope that Chuck Hagel will be present in the next administration, regardless of who is in charge.
Senator Hagel's speech was both a response to the Senate's vote on the bailout package, and a farewell address. Hagel had the freedom to say anything he wanted; the Senate had already passed the bill, which he supported, and he is not running for reelection---he had the chance to say exactly what he thought, without concern for political backlash.
By the time Hagel spoke, the Chamber was nearly empty; the vote had concluded, and few Senators remained. It is a shame, because Hagel's speech was one of the eloquent and insightful I have heard by a politician in office.
Hagel said the bailout bill was an example of bipartisan partnership for the good of the American people. He said the future of the United States depends on the ability of both parties to work together: "Without that bipartisan consensus, we end up in the underbrush of political paralysis," said Hagel. "Much of what we've seen, unfortunately, has been about political paralysis. We all have to take some responsibility for that."
He went on to say [I am paraphrasing here; the full-text of the speech is not yet available online, but I will link to it as soon as it is] that the distrust of the first bailout bill by the American people was the result of years of governance without transparency; that the American people are suspicious of legislation rushed through Congress when their leadership has failed to explain their own positions, and that Congress has not done enough to exert it's Constitutionally ensured power.
"Article one of the Constitution is about Congress. We are a co-equal branch of government," said Hagel. "If anything I've learned in the 12 years I've been here it is the importance of sharing, participating in the governance of our country, being part of that governance, helping make decisions with the president and the executive."
Hagel has been vociferous in his criticism of the Bush administration. He has talked about the lack of transparency, and also the administration's disregard for the powers of the other two branches of government. He was an early critic of the administration's handling of the war in Iraq, and cosponsored a resolution in the Senate with Joe Biden in January 2007 opposing the increase of troop levels in Iraq: "This is a ping-pong game with American lives. These young men and women that we put in Anbar province, in Iraq, in Baghdad are not beans. They're real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we're doing - all of us - before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder. We better be as sure as you can be.”
The resolution passed the Senate, but the Bush administration said it would disregard the non-binding resolution, and proceed with their plan to send more troops to Iraq. Hagel responded eloquently:
Chuck Hagel is a lifelong Republican; he was given two Purple Hearts for his service in the Vietnam War, and has served the people of Nebraska for twelve years. His final speech on the floor of the Senate was a dignified finale, to what was, all too uncommonly, dignified service. With it, came an important reminder to whomever heads the next administration; the Constitution calls for a balance of power---the checks and balances upon which the foundation of our democracy rests. In the wake of a turbulent week in Washington, we should all spend some time thinking about what it means for a presidential administration to "go rogue", and disregard even the voices of sanity within it's own party.
Senator Hagel decided not to run for reelection; this is a real loss to the Senate, but an even bigger loss to the Republican party, which has fractured and whose members are seemingly desperately trying to distance themselves from the Bush administration. One can only hope that Chuck Hagel will be present in the next administration, regardless of who is in charge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
