Blog covering all aspects of Internet marketing including search optimization & marketing, email marketing, blog marketing, video marketing, social network marketing, SMS marketing & online pr.

My Photo
View David Erickson's profile on LinkedIn

23 posts categorized "Political Marketing"

May 06, 2008

Online Politics Is The Same Old, Writ Large

Star Tribune political reporter Bob Von Sternberg had . My colleague and I discussed online politics with Von Sternberg for the piece, and, you know, that's always fun because who doesn't love to talk shop?

For years we've heard that this will be the year the comes into its own while the final result proved underwhelming. Things are different this time.

As Von Sternberg points out, to date, much of the focus of online politics has been on fundraising. That certainly is a huge part of how the Internet can make a difference in an Internet campaign.

There are three things that have changed: 1) Citizen branding, 2) social networking, 3) and Millennials.

, never before has it been possible for an individual to brand a candidate to a world wide audience by essentially creating their own TV ad. Among the results thus far, we've had one candidate kicked out of the race (Senator Allen) and another's sex appeal punched up (The Obama Girl).

The social networking aspect should not be underestimated. Due to this remarkable technology that includes status updates and friends lists,  political messages that are distributed through these trusted networks can efficiently gain traction. Social networks is word-of-mouth on steroids.

In one particular way, online politics is the same old thing, just larger. What, after all, is politics if not networking? Mixing online social networking with politics is a natural.

Lastly, , Millennials are having and will continue to have a major influence this election season. Having grown up online, they are at ease with and know how to exploit social media. They have built the campaigns' infrastructure and are exploiting it to its fullest.

It is noteworthy that the three examples Von Sternberg cites include one Xer and two Millennials. These kids turn out to vote. And they bring their friends with them.

April 22, 2008

Citizen Branding On The Campaign Trail

The viral videos just keep coming for . The most recent is Baracky: The Movie in which Obama and are injected into the storyline of the movie , to amusing effect. This is another example of candidate branding by someone other than the campaign iteself.

By inserting Obama into the Rocky roll, he is being portrayed simultaneously as the challenger and the champ. In the movie, Rocky plays an upstart but everyone knows he ends up as champion. It's a nice bit of work:

February 10, 2008

Online Branding In The 2008 Presidential Race

The 2008 presidential race has been called the election and that is certainly hard to dispute. There have been numerous examples of YouTube videos playing a significant role in the race for the White House.

In each instance, the YouTube videos attempted to brand a candidate one way or another and to varying degrees of success.

Pre-YouTube

The first instance of YouTube-like online branding of a politician in Minnesota, and, perhaps, nationally, occurred during 's 2002 campaign against the late Senator .

At the outset of Coleman's challenge against Wellstone, that featured a hilarious Flash animation depicting Coleman as 's lapdog and, literally, hand puppet. The animation used actual clips of Coleman speeches and played on Coleman's close relationship with the White House. I cannot, unfortunately, find the actual animation. The site was instantly popular. It worked so well because the piece exploited some essential truths of Coleman the politician: He was handpicked by to run against Wellstone and he had big monied supporters.

BushBoy.com was followed by during the 2004 presidential election with a Flash animation that lampooned both George W. Bush and . Again, the satire was so effective because it absolutely nailed if not essential truths, then perceived truths of both candidates:

YouTube Politics

Prior to YouTube, you had to be pretty motivated and needed not just some technical expertise to create popular online political satire, but enough marketing savvy to build awareness. When , it provided an easy way to publish satirical political videos and offered a centralized, ready-made audience for them.

Senator George Allen's Macaca Moment

What's more, YouTube ushered in the era of citizen generated media, offering a platform and an audience for raw video shot by individuals. During this presidential race, that fact played out most prominently when a worker for the senate campaign caught his opponent, Senator , using a racial slur when referring to the Webb volunteer.

Allen was considered a front-runner for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. The Webb campaign uploaded the video to YouTube and it soon became news, with television reports airing the video itself. The widespread exposure of that video branded Senator Allen as a racist. Subsequent reports of Allen using racial slurs and his awkward attempts at explaining the video simply solidified the perception that he was a racist. Allen lost his re-election bid and, as a result of the video, was no longer a viable presidential candidate.

Rudy Giuliani in Drag

It's an understatement to say that faced an uphill climb in securing the conservative base of his party during his bid for the Republican presidential nomination. Conservatives saw no difference between him and a liberal Democrat. Though Guiliani failed for a variety of reasons, it certainly didn't help his cause when someone uploaded video of the former Mayor of New York in drag and flirting with . The video reinforced Giuliani's brand as a liberal:

Big Mother Hillary

The Obama campaign's mashup of the 1984 commercial was effective because for years has been pummeled (and branded) by her right wing critics as cold, distant, and a big government socialist:

This is the original Apple commercial:

Which, coming full circle, is based, of course, on 's novel about totalitarianism, :

The Clinton's Soprano's Spoof

Riffing off the finale episode of the final season of the immensely popular show , the Clinton campaign spoofed the finale with a lighthearted version of their own. This piece was fascinating because people tended to read into it what they wanted to see. Supporters of the Clintons saw it as a laudable attempt to show people Hillary's lighter side. Clinton critics, on the other hand, thought it entirely appropriate that the and Hillary would compare themselves to a crime family. In this case, branding was in the eye of the beholder:

This is the original ending scene from The Sopranos:

Pretty Boy John

The Edwards campaign had to be mortified when a clip of the candidate appeared on YouTube that showed him obsessing over his hair, reinforcing the perception of as a pretty boy:

The negative branding from that video was so successful that the campaign felt obliged to address it with a self-effacing video of their own for :

Mitt's Many Faces

The rap against has been that he never met a position he wouldn't change, if it were politically expedient to do so. And if you had any doubts, YouTube was there to remind you that Romney once held the polar opposite positions he now holds:

I Got A Crush On My Candidate

has been the biggest beneficiary to date of online branding through YouTube. When launched the video, the branding of Obama as a sexy candidate easily took hold because he is a very charismatic man. The video has only been a positive for the campaign:

With the phenomenal success of I Got A Crush On Obama, Barely Political followed up with Obama Girl vs. Giuliani Girl:

Too Hot For Hillary

The Me Too videos followed shortly after the Obama Girl made such a big splash but not always to the benefit of the candidate. , for example, released Hott 4 Hill, containing a rather obvious lesbian theme:

Huck Me

The Huckabee Girl video mocks Republican candidate 's belief in :

Yes They Can

Finally, Barack Obama again benefits from independent online branding with the Yes We Can music video featuring musicians and Hollywood stars singing along to an Obama speech. The video brands Obama as an inspiring, lyrical, poetic speaker. Again, the branding is effective because it's true:

Who Needs Swift Boats?

Forget , the new are going to be even more opaque than the shadowy groups of elections past. If you like anonymous, unaccountable attack ads, stay tuned to YouTube. We are entering a new era of political campaigns because now, with the ease of YouTube, digital cameras and editing software, one person with a clever idea and some skill now has the power to affect an election.

January 21, 2008

The Evolution Of A Viral Video

In 2005, Sony ran a television ad campaign for their that used bright colored superballs bouncing through the streets of San Francisco, filmed by director Nicolai Fuglsig, and set to 's song Heartbeats. It is a sight to behold:

The incredible piece took on a life of it's own online and inspired mashups like this one that uses the Battlefield 2 video game:

And a take-off commercial for Tango Clear:

To, finally, (don't artists pride themselves on their originality? Just asking.):

January 07, 2008

Does Barack Obama's Youth Vote Signal A Generational & Political Shift?

I'm more inclined than most people to be optimistic about young voters actually turning out to cast their ballot; specifically, this generation of young voters, the Millennials. I say that because I've been paying close attention to generations since reading and 's book , which completely changed the way I think about generations in general and historical cycles in particular.

In short, the book examines American history in terms of generational change and argues that the reactions of one generation to another create a dynamic that produces four distinct generational archetypes that recur throughout our history.

Those generational archetypes and their most recent adult accompanying generations are Hero (the GI generation), Artist (the Silent generation), Idealist (the Baby Boom generation), and Nomad (Generation X). The newest generation, the Millennials, therefore would be a Hero generation and aligned with the WWII-era GI generation.

The GI generation's accomplishments include saving the world from tyranny by fighting and winning World War II, building institutional pillars such as Social Security and the United Nations, fueled the post-war economic expansion, conquered space, and led the nation through the Cold War and the demise of Communism. The GIs were a civic-minded organization of builders.

Millennials' Political Muscle

Like the GI generation, the Millennials are coming of age during a time of crisis (Hero generations, both) and of a civic-minded bent. On page 231 of Strauss and Howe's 2000 book , they observe:

The fist Millennials have yet to cast their votes, so they're still flying low under the adult radar, presumed to be alienated cynics who don't care about voting, much less organizing. Yet adults who watch them perform civic tasks may sense something different brewing. Today's school kids take the Pledge of Allegiance, and flag saluting, more seriously than Boomers or Gen Xers did. author Don Tapscott describes their "very strong sense of the common good and of collective social and civic responsibility." Check out Kids Voting USA, Children's Express, or the web world, and you'll see kids discussing issues, participating in polls, and organizing mock elections, at times quite energetically.

But the very fiber of the political junkie in me believes in the conventional wisdom of politics that young people do not vote. During my entire adult lifetime, election after election, young voters have failed to participate in the political process to any significant degree. Thus, even though my research indicated that the Millennials could be the exception, I was highly skeptical of the Obama campaign's reliance on turning out not just young voters, but new young voters to an Iowa caucus system that is highly intimidating to newcomers.

The following video features William Strauss discussing Millennials Rising on 11/14/00, prior to the Supreme Court deciding the 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush:

Barack Obama's Youth Vote


  Barack Obama 
  Originally uploaded by Allison Harger

Bucking conventional wisdom and history, did just that. As , Obama's campaign turned out voters 25 years of age and younger in record numbers: "while overall Democratic turnout jumped 90% [from 2004], the number of young Democrats participating soared 135%...According to surveys of voters entering the caucuses, young voters preferred Obama over the next-closest competitor by more than 4 to 1." That gave Obama a net gain of 17,000 votes and he won with roughly 20,000 votes ahead of and .

But even Obama's victory on the backs of young voters didn't fully dispel my skepticism of depending heavily upon the youth vote. That turnout could easily be explained by the fact that the Gen X candidate is a youthful, charismatic man who naturally appeals to young people. I would have easily accepted that explanation until I read a story on Saturday about a local election here in Minnesota.

In Northfield, Minnesota, we held a special election to fill a state Senate seat that was vacated due to a judicial appointment. The race pitted Ray Cox, a moderate Republican who had held a state House seat in the district against the DFL (the name of our state Democratic party) candidate, , a political newcomer.

"Dahle was boosted by the student vote at Carleton and St. Olaf colleges, despite predictions that few undergrads would turn out for a special election held just as they returned to campus from winter break," the Star Tribune reported. "In the four Northfield precincts where most students vote, Dahle won nearly four times as many votes as Cox. His advantage there accounted for about two-thirds of his 1,600-vote victory margin."

Add this to the data on Millennials' civic-mindedness, and their votes for Obama, and I'm far more willing to believe that a fundamental shift has occurred in youth voting patterns. If young voters continue to consistently show up at the polls, then our nation's political landscape will be fundamentally altered.

Barack Obama's Micromarketing Campaign

Just as fascinating, however, is just how the Obama campaign got these Millennials to participate. As , though it doesn't specifically identify it as such, the campaign used the peer-to-peer micro-targeting tactics described in the book to get out the vote.

The book details how the Bush campaign used sophisticated marketing tactics to identify and motivate new voters to cast their ballot for Bush. By layering typical demographic data with psychographic data, they could identify Bush voters with near certainty. Based on 30 some indicators such as magazine subscriptions, what television shows you watched, whether or not you owned a gun, or a boat, and a host of other lifestyle factors, the Bush campaign found new votes in areas that past campaigns ignored because they were considered Democratic turf.

After identifying your voters, you match up those voters with people like them from the campaign to convince them to support the candidate. Peer to peer. As the Time magazine article points out, the Obama campaign did precisely that: "Veterans call veterans, high school students call high school students and so forth."

Such a strategy makes plenty of sense on its face, but it is likely much more effective with Millennials. From pages 232-233 of Millennials Rising:

Millennial teens are very interested in voting--though less interested in actually pursuing politics or government as a career. They're deeply distrustful of the media. They get their political information less through the usual adult news sources than through comedy shows (candidate appearances on Jay Leno or David Letterman leave quite an impression), internet web sites and chat rooms, and--especially--conversations with one another. [Emphasis mine.]

The short of it is word-of-mouth marketing works best among Millennials because they trust one another more than they trust any other source.

Consider the recent Pew Internet & American Life Project . [PDF] about teens' use of social media reveals that the youths that are most active online, content creators, are also more likely to spend more face-time with their friends. By tapping into these teens , the Obama campaign is harnessing the youth who are most most savvy at, and the most likely to help, campaign online. They are naturals at using the ready-made online campaign infrastructure of social networking sites like and . And they are using the very people who are most influential among their peers and the most likely to get their peers to the polls because they are organizers.

From a cultural standpoint, if Barack Obama's youth vote doesn't fail him--and we should find out if the trend continues tomorrow in New Hampshire--it will affect not only our political life but it will mark the beginning of the end of the Boomers' cultural dominance.

From a marketing point of view, the Obama campaign may provide a textbook case of micro-targeting, peer-to-peer lifestyle marketing in action.

November 09, 2007

Hillary Clinton's Rapid Response Microsite


Maid-Rite Sandwich
Originally uploaded by oanais

On my way home from work yesterday, I was delighted to about 's campaign stop in Iowa at a because back in the day, when I went to school in Iowa, a Maid-Rite hamburger basket (which comes with thinly-sliced onion rings) with a strawberry shake was a regular meal for my girlfriend and I. Nummm.

But then I heard the down-on-her-luck waitress from the Maid-Rite that Clinton visited say that the Senator did not leave a tip.  I winced. That is fundamental politics, folks. How do you not leave a tip for the working woman? I expected this story to overtake Clinton's debate-flub story in the news cycle.

The only problem was that the campaign did pay a tip, a $100 tip on a $157 bill, to be exact. NPR had gotten it wrong.

In response, the Clinton campaign launched , a rapid response microsite to combat inaccurate coverage. .

The rapid response site is a great, if not obvious, idea.

The site includes blog-like posts rebutting various news stories and campaign issues, and video clips rebutting a given topic or story. The site includes an feed to which you can subscribe.

That's great as far as it goes but I think the campaign is missing a huge opportunity, here.

If I were them, I'd add to the site the ability for visitors to subscribe to a rapid response email update, a rapid response text message update, and a rapid response instant message update. This would allow them to respond in near real time.


Hillary Clinton
Originally uploaded by
Will Merydith

I didn't know the NPR story was inaccurate until I read the headlines this morning. That left from about 5 p.m. yesterday till 6 a.m. this morning for me to discuss or even blog about the story with a lot of people, spreading the falsehood in the process. Getting a text message shortly after the story aired would have obviated that problem.

I would also add MP3 audio clips from the candidate and/or campaign staff commenting on the story, as well as embedabble code for photos and video about the story in question for the blogosphere to use. Bloggers would love it because, hey, it's additional free content that they don't have to spend time creating and it makes their blog posts all the more richer. That would also encourage friendly bloggers to seed the blogosphere with the rebuttal.

Still, rapid response microsites are a great tool for the of presidential campaigns.

August 21, 2007

Across The Sound - New Marketing Podcast Interview

Earlier this month I about with for his new marketing podcast. In addition to the bridge collapse we talked a bit about online politics, as well.

.

I've been meaning to do a series of posts about my favorite Internet marketing podcasts, so this is a natural time to start.

I've been listening to Across The Sound since last year. The focus is new marketing and PR. Each weekly episode lasts about an hour and Joseph usually covers one topic in quite a bit of depth.  He'll include voice mail comments left by listeners and address their comments.

What I really like about it and the primary reason I subscribe is that Joseph is enthusiastic about diving in to new Internet technologies and trends and analyzes how they apply to marketing. As someone who is always trying to see beyond the horizon, I do appreciate his thoughtful and thought-provoking treatment of his subject matter.

So, clearly, I recommend subscribing.

July 27, 2007

Is YouTube Wrecking The YouTube/CNN Debates?

The that and may be backing out of the CNN/YouTube GOP Primary debate. The report says Giuliani is unlikely to participate and quotes Romney dismissing the seriousness of the debates: "I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman."

The reason the two Republicans want to skip the debate probably has more to do with the success of YouTube itself than with the dignity of the debate format.

Search for and the first link you get is to a video of the former New York city mayor in drag:

A search for returns a bunch of links to videos produced by the Romney campaign but also a link to a video of the 1994 U.S. Senate campaign debate between Romney and featuring Romney expressing views that Republican primary voters could find distasteful and even offensive:

Both videos could easily make it to the debates if hooked on legitimate questions. Romney's video is easy: Because he's expressed views contrary to those he now holds, how are we to believe him? Giuliani in drag could be used in the context of a question about gay rights, an issue Giuliani probably would like to avoid addressing before a Republican primary audience.

Indeed, as two of the most popular presidential campaign political videos on YouTube (the Giuliani video has been viewed more than 373,000 times; the Romney video got more than 162,000 views), their absence from the debate would be glaring.

See also:

July 25, 2007

Online Politics & The CNN/YouTube Debates

Watching the for the Democratic presidential primary candidates , I thought it was a fairly good format but not quite the populist innovation I was hoping for.  The one thing that struck me from an online politics and marketing point of view, was the candidate's YouTube commercials that ran going into, appropriately, commercial breaks.

With the exception of and , though some were cute or humorous, all the candidates had the pretty standard boilerplate political TV ads we've come to expect. Only Clinton and Edwards embraced the culture of YouTube.

There are certain communication conventions that have percolated to the surface of the YouTube community to become common practices. Take three prominent examples 1) Webcam commentary where the video creator(s) speaks directly to the camera, 2) mashups, where you take various pictures or video clips and mix them with music or commentary to make an entirely new video, and 3) crowd sourcing, where you ask the YouTube community at large to create a video for you.

John Edwards' campaign produced their own video for the debate with a mashup of the title song from the musical and photos that contrasted images of hair with images of , President , mayhem in Iraq, and the desperation during the aftermath of :

The video is very sophisticated in the sense that it addresses an Edwards weakness. Edwards has been criticized as a pretty boy and Democratic primary voters may worry that this presents an electability issue for him. A YouTube video of him combing his hair before an interview has enjoyed more than 825,000 views and not long ago he was in the news for paying exorbitant prices to his hair stylist:

Edwards' ad address the issue, makes fun of himself indirectly, while bringing up substantive campaign issues. It also looks like a YouTube video with it's blurry, over-compressed graphics and using the slide show, photo montage format with nonstandard size photos that leave black bars on the screen.

Hilary Clinton's YouTube ad is the result of yet another campaign contest, this time asking her supporters to create a video for the occasion.  The last time the campaign tried such an approach was when they asked supporters to pick Clinton's campaign theme song. That didn't go so well when .

But this time, . The winner of the contest mashes up "" from the suites by ...

...with the iconic placards from 's ...

... right down to the same font:

By using crowd sourcing (a democratic activity, in this case), the Clinton campaign got a video that looks right at home on YouTube, evokes a cultural icon representative of change in the form of Bob Dylan with imagery that touches two generations (the 80s band did as well) and echoes the campaign's catchphrase (Ready For Change), addresses specific campaign issues, and ends with a clever tagline that appeals to women.

I have one real criticism about the debate.

I would've liked to see CNN and YouTube use the wisdom of crowds, the Web 2.0 idea that many heads are better than one, by allowing people to vote on which video questions would be used for the debate rather than leaving it up to the news organizations to choose.

Sure, the campaigns would no doubt game the system by having their supporters vote for the best questions for their candidate. And there's no surefire way to prevent people from voting multiple times, though there are restrictions you can implement. But the sheer critical mass of the volume of CNN viewers and YouTube users would no doubt level that playing field.

And, God forbid, foreigners might vote for the questions! But you know what, who cares? It's not like, in this day and age, the rest of the world's perception of or issues with us don't matter.

My hunch is that the most pertinent and pressing issues would rise to the top and the questions would be formed in a manner most people thought would elicit a valid answer.

Finally, I would have really liked to see the candidates fully embrace Open Source Politics by, rather than directing their message at voters, eliciting opinions from voters. I would've liked to have seen one or more candidates use their commercial to ask the viewers and YouTubers for their feedback, for their issues and concerns, and to post them as a video response to that commercial.

By and large, though, the debate was more than a ratings gimmick, it was a step forward in online politics.

All Candidate Commercials For The Democratic Primary CNN/YouTube Debate

July 05, 2007

MikeCiresi.org - Cybersquatting In The Minnesota US Senate Race

I originally published this story in the June 7, 2007 issue of the Politics In Minnesota newsletter. I'm posting it here because it has a lot of bearing on Internet marketing in general and on online reputation management in particular.

Cybersquatting & Wikipedia Intrigue

revealed an interesting Internet marketing tactic. But by whom remains a mystery. At the very top of the search results you'll see a highlighted link that is labeled a "Sponsored Link." That's an ad purchased by the Ciresi campaign that points to the ciresiforsenate.com site.

It's the first link in the "natural" or non-advertising search results that's  interesting. That link reads Mike Ciresi and points to .  Clicking on that link takes you to what appears to be, and is--and isn't--.

It is the Wikipedia entry in your browser but that entry is "surrounded" by the mikeciresi.org domain. If you click on any link on the Wikipedia page, you'll notice in your browser's address bar that the address of the page never changes; it always remains at mikeciresi.org. Mike Ciresi's Wikipedia page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Ciresi yet that address never shows up in your address bar.

The technique is called domain masking. It entails some simple HTML code called "framesets" that essentially encloses all browser activity within the domain that is used for masking purposes. You can see how it works by using your browsers' "view source" function when you're at mikeciresi.org.

In effect, you never leave mikeciresi.org but can surf the Web within it. The only way to escape the domain is by hitting your back button until you reach your original Google search or by typing a different domain in your browser's address bar.

There is nothing sinister at all to this practice per se though it's a bit of a mystery as to why it is being done in this case.

The domain mikeciresi.org ranks 1st when you search for "mike ciresi" because it contains the words "Mike Ciresi" in the Title area of the site that shows up on your browser's title bar and the words are contained within the domain itself, an important consideration for Google rankings.

The campaign's domain, ciresiforsenate.com, has not been optimized for the phrase "mike ciresi." That basically means that those words have not been placed prominently or strategically enough on the pages of the site for Google to recognize that that is the topic of the site. It explains both why that domain does not rank well for Ciresi-related searches and that in turn explains why the campaign is buying ads on Google.

Though Google knows about ciresiforsenate.com (it ), the search engine obviously doesn't consider the site relevant enough for the search "mike ciresi." Further searching revealed [NOTE: The following data was accurate when this piece was originally published but have since changed, possibly due to search marketing done by the campaign]:

The ciresiforsenate.com domain name was purchased on February 11, 2005 by Ciresi's State Director Kerry Greeley (Tim Walz' former campaign manager). Six months later the mikeciresi.org domain was purchased anonymously from a domain registrar in Germany on July 14, 2005.

Greeley does not know who registered mikeciresi.org and no one has contacted the campaign about it.

But why mask Ciresi's Wikipedia entry?

There are only two reasonable explanations: 1) Since mikeciresi.org points to the relatively innocuous Wikipedia page, the domain is controlled by someone outside, but friendly to, the campaign, or 2) the domain is controlled by someone who may or may not be a friend but, if hostile, may be pointing it at Wikipedia to keep their powder dry, so to speak. Considering that the domain was purchased on foreign soil, if you will, the safe bet is on the latter. Also, since Google tends to rank Wikipedia pages near the top, masking that page may be an attempt to fool Google into thinking the domain is a Wikipedia entry so it will rank well.

View the screenshots (click on the graphic for more detail):

Google Search For "mike ciresi":

Google Search Results for "mike ciresi" on 6/6/07

mikeciresi.org Masking Mike Ciresi's Wikipedia Entry:

Mike Ciresi Wikipedia Entry Masked By mikeciresi.org

HTML Source Of mikeciresi.org Pointing To Wikipedia Entry:

HTML Source of mikeciresi.org

June 28, 2007

Communism 2.0

Since I've been going on about the open source movement this week, I thought I'd republish for you a piece I did originally for the May 25, 207 issue of the Politics In Minnesota newsletter:

Open Source = Communism

It's often amusingly accurate: The type of technology you favor often predicts your ideological leanings. Mac users, for example, are passionate about their computers and can often be heard railing against Microsoft, the evil megacorporation; the irony of their passion for Apple, another megacorporation, apparently lost on them. The same phenomenon can often be seen playing out with Internet technologies, as well.

There are two primary technologies used to create complex database-driven web sites and application: Microsoft's and the open source . Both programming languages are fine and will do the job. The primary difference between them comes down to one basic thing: cost. Microsoft technology requires licenses and software purchases and the software required for PHP sites is free.

Free versus paid. Open source versus proprietary. This may explain why tech people who lean conservative are more likely to use Microsoft technologies while the more liberal tech people tend to favor open source; and it plays into all the political stereotypes.

Those who favor Microsoft technology are more likely to come from the corporate environment and probably have more money to pay for software. Those who favor PHP, on the other hand, are more likely to come from a nonprofit environment or are freelancers for whom the savings on software are significant.

Proprietary software such as Microsoft's is more top-down because it prohibits the user from modifying or enhancing the source code. And the purpose of Microsoft software, of course, is first and foremost to make money. Open source software, on the other hand, is about collaborating and sharing and creating a pool of resources (i.e. property) which anyone can use and/or improve in order to enrich the commons rather than the individual.

The economic stereotypes fall into place.

On Monday, the saying that Republicans are well behind Democrats in online politics. That may be explained by the aforementioned embrace of the respective technologies both in fact and philosophy.

The open source movement has gained tremendous momentum largely due to the fact that open programming platforms such as PHP and JavaScript have powered Web 2.0, the Internet as it looks today. Liberal tech people therefore have more experience, skills, and expertise using the current lingua franca of the Web.

Further, it is the notion of open source (where anyone can contribute) that informs much of what is driving Internet content today. is a massive online encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute and/or edit. Blogs (and, increasingly, ) allow anyone to comment and hold a discussion pertaining to a given blog post. User-created content seeds such sites as and Flickr. And social networking sites such as and and , make it easy to find and communicate with people of similar interests.

Such a chaotic environment may feel comfortable to debate-loving liberals but not so much to message-disciplined conservatives.

As if to confirm this ideological breakdown, the last remaining prominent Communist, Cuba's own Fidel Castro, has encouraged his country to while Brazil's Lula Da Silva began migrating government computers to the open source Linux operating system .

June 14, 2007

The YouTube Debate

and are pairing up to co-sponsor a debate among the eight Democratic presidential candidates on July 23 in South Carolina with questions posed "via video submitted by ordinary people through YouTube. Moderating between the viewer and the candidates will be Anderson Cooper, the CNN anchor," .

The only weak link in that chain is Anderson Cooper; or that would appear to be the case as of right now. The details over how the video questions will be chosen have not yet been released, but if it's up to the moderator or mainstream journalists, you can be sure that the clips chosen will not be among the most insightful nor hard-hitting of those submitted.

It's a great idea in theory but in practice, CNN will not be choosing video that is likely to overly offend their television audience. And that's a shame because it is usually the edgy videos that get right to the heart of the matter with a bluntness not to be found on among the DC political press corps.

Ideally, the videos would be chosen based on some type of rating system. YouTube has a built in stats system they could use; their most-veiwed, most commented, or most linked-to videos or some combination of them all.

Or they could run the videos through and use their community votes as the arbiter of debate questions.

Sure, either system can be  gamed but you can bet each campaign will be gaming so that probably all washes out  anyway.

It just seems that asking a social network to pose questions for a debate is rather pointless if you don't also ask them which among their video questions should be posed to the candidates.

April 26, 2007

MySpace Presidential Primary

I was a guest on , a segment of G4 TV's Attack of the Show video game program. The segment aired on the 24th and it addressed the . They asked me to be a guest because of my role as co-publisher of and because I cover online politics quite a bit.

The other guest was , a political reporter and blogger for the . The host is . The appearance was a bit of a treat for me because I'm a fan of the show and, though we didn't talk video games, I'm a fan of G4 TV's video game channel, as well. 

.

February 24, 2007

links for 2007-02-24