According to the NYT's political blog John Edwards is rolling out a text for dollars campaign tonight.
The Edwards campaign will send out nearly 13,000 text messages to supporters asking for last minute (of the quarter) support. I don't know how you would feel, but getting a text message asking for money would only ensure that the candidate would lose my vote!
Apparently Edwards is not the only texter! Obama and Hillary have similar text "services." These campaigns text campaign updates to their supporters. Honestly, what can these texts possibly say?
Message from: Hillary
I love America, I need more money
That's about it. What kind of updates are there at this stage in the campaign? Who needs updates on their phone about a campaign? Isn't reading about it online and in the paper enough? This isn't a fast moving sporting event, text updates are not needed!
All these campaigns are trying to do is keep in touch to raise more money. There is no actual news or benefit for the supporter.
Why is it that only Democrats are employing these odd campaign techniques?
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Look at me!
The 2008 presidential candidates are going high tech. As if the myspace type websites wern't enough, the campaigns are now throwing their money at political blogs and google adsense.
According to the Wall Street Journal, in the entire 2004 campaign the parties and candidates spent a total of around $17,000 for ads on political blogs. During one week last month Democrat John Edwards spent 'nearly the same amount' on more than 25 liberal blogs.
In the first quarter alone Edwards spend $37,981 on ads on political blogs. Chris Dodd spend $24,653, Hillary Clinton $23,277, Barack Obama $12,036, Mitt Romney (the only Republican listed) $4,207.
Ads on blogs are cost effective when compared to traditional advertising. At this stage in the campaign the candidates are trying to appeal to the most extreme of their parties, as they are typically the only voters in primary elections. The majority of these party loyalists read blogs on a daily basis. By having ads on these blogs the candidate is putting his or her face in front of these prized voters in a very efficient way.
Candidates are also experimenting with Google AdWords. Sen. McCain is aggresively using this service. McCain's text running ads are pegged to some 2,500 words. Mitt Romney is using AdWords with a coupld hundred key words. How well does AdWords work? You tell me!--------------->
According to the Wall Street Journal, in the entire 2004 campaign the parties and candidates spent a total of around $17,000 for ads on political blogs. During one week last month Democrat John Edwards spent 'nearly the same amount' on more than 25 liberal blogs.
In the first quarter alone Edwards spend $37,981 on ads on political blogs. Chris Dodd spend $24,653, Hillary Clinton $23,277, Barack Obama $12,036, Mitt Romney (the only Republican listed) $4,207.
Ads on blogs are cost effective when compared to traditional advertising. At this stage in the campaign the candidates are trying to appeal to the most extreme of their parties, as they are typically the only voters in primary elections. The majority of these party loyalists read blogs on a daily basis. By having ads on these blogs the candidate is putting his or her face in front of these prized voters in a very efficient way.
Candidates are also experimenting with Google AdWords. Sen. McCain is aggresively using this service. McCain's text running ads are pegged to some 2,500 words. Mitt Romney is using AdWords with a coupld hundred key words. How well does AdWords work? You tell me!--------------->
Monday, June 18, 2007
¿Un español que habla a presidente?
Would being fluent in Spanish increase the effectiveness of our next president?
With our immigration crisis and rising Hispanic population I believe it is a necessity for our leader to be able to speak directly to this large population. Of all the current 2008 candidates only two (Richardson and Biden) speak Spanish fluently.
Many candidates believe that if they hablan español their poll numbers will improve. I have read that there are even weekly Spanish lessons for all members of Congress. After all Hispanics are the largest minority in America, nearly 15% of the American population . This is a huge group of potential voters.
It seems that most foreign heads of state speak English, but our presidents never speak their language. Why is that?
According to The New York Times, Michael Bloomberg and Newt Gingrich are currently honing their Spanish skills. Barack Obama tried to deliver a radio broadcast in Spanish, but was choppy and most likely took numerous takes.
The immigration crisis needs to be solved, and a Spanish speaking president will be a great step forward.
With our immigration crisis and rising Hispanic population I believe it is a necessity for our leader to be able to speak directly to this large population. Of all the current 2008 candidates only two (Richardson and Biden) speak Spanish fluently.
Many candidates believe that if they hablan español their poll numbers will improve. I have read that there are even weekly Spanish lessons for all members of Congress. After all Hispanics are the largest minority in America, nearly 15% of the American population . This is a huge group of potential voters.
It seems that most foreign heads of state speak English, but our presidents never speak their language. Why is that?
According to The New York Times, Michael Bloomberg and Newt Gingrich are currently honing their Spanish skills. Barack Obama tried to deliver a radio broadcast in Spanish, but was choppy and most likely took numerous takes.
The immigration crisis needs to be solved, and a Spanish speaking president will be a great step forward.
Obama faulters
Presidential hopeful Barack Obama's call for a "different kind of politics" is slowly evolving into a mere reflection of traditional politics.
Recently the Obama campaign clandestinely distributed documents that suggest former president Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton have received money from Indian-Americans and companies that do business in India.
Obama has since disavowed these documents saying that they were "stupid and caustic," and that neither he nor his senior staff had previously seen them.
As you may already know, I am going to be the last person to defend a Clinton. But when you punch someone in the face you can't say "oh, I take that back." Whats done is done!
If you ask me, it was a very "Clinton-esque" move by Obama. Releasing documents, getting the thought of how greedy the Clintons can be in (undecided) voters heads, then as these voters realized that it was odd that this was released by Obama, the Senator "takes it back." It is actually very smart politics.
He put some doubt in undecided voters, and he doesn't look bad for doing it because he "never saw" the documents before. It was a "mistake" by his research team. More like a calculated effort on the part of his senior political advisers, but hey that's politics right?
After all of Obama's preaching for a new kind of politics, he does this. He has taken a step back in my eyes.
But we do live in America, where a president can commit perjury, be impeached, and his poll numbers go up.
Courtesy of the New York Times, you can read the documents that Obama never saw here:
Document on Hillary Clinton
Document on Bill Clinton
Recently the Obama campaign clandestinely distributed documents that suggest former president Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton have received money from Indian-Americans and companies that do business in India.
Obama has since disavowed these documents saying that they were "stupid and caustic," and that neither he nor his senior staff had previously seen them.
As you may already know, I am going to be the last person to defend a Clinton. But when you punch someone in the face you can't say "oh, I take that back." Whats done is done!
If you ask me, it was a very "Clinton-esque" move by Obama. Releasing documents, getting the thought of how greedy the Clintons can be in (undecided) voters heads, then as these voters realized that it was odd that this was released by Obama, the Senator "takes it back." It is actually very smart politics.
He put some doubt in undecided voters, and he doesn't look bad for doing it because he "never saw" the documents before. It was a "mistake" by his research team. More like a calculated effort on the part of his senior political advisers, but hey that's politics right?
After all of Obama's preaching for a new kind of politics, he does this. He has taken a step back in my eyes.
But we do live in America, where a president can commit perjury, be impeached, and his poll numbers go up.
Courtesy of the New York Times, you can read the documents that Obama never saw here:
Document on Hillary Clinton
Document on Bill Clinton
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Two Hillaries
">
"Southern Clinton"
">
"Washington Clinton"
The fact that Hillary thinks that acting will get her elected as our president is an insult to our intelligence. Her accent was fake, coached, and forced (and annoying!).
Some are saying that her southern rant was a quote taken out of context. This is false, you can see the full video of her speech on youtube, she was quoting someone, but the accent stayed throughout the speech.
"Southern Clinton"
">
"Washington Clinton"
The fact that Hillary thinks that acting will get her elected as our president is an insult to our intelligence. Her accent was fake, coached, and forced (and annoying!).
Some are saying that her southern rant was a quote taken out of context. This is false, you can see the full video of her speech on youtube, she was quoting someone, but the accent stayed throughout the speech.
Fake Candidates
A very interesting video has been posted on nytimes.com about Rudy Giuliani. It suggests that Giuliani, who is typically a loose cannon, completely changes his persona when he campaigns.
This is odd because the whole theme of the video was that it was great how restrained Giuliani can be on the campaign trail.
Do we really want a president who is a completely different person than who we voted for? In that case how about everyone vote for me, and get Dennis Kucinich in the White House, what's the difference?
It is odd that we all know that candidates do this, and we really don't even care.
This takes us back to the humorous example of Hillary Clinton using a thick southern accent when speaking to southern voters, and a New York accent when in New York.
Regardless of why they do it, it is misleading.
The whole purpose of a campaign is to show your true self, which is why campaigns last so long. Most candidates end up weeding themselves out like Howard Dean (hoooohahaaaa!!!).
The argument that suggests candidates change their persona during elections to be more "like the people" is ridiculous. If they are like 'us,' then they don't have to fake anything.
When I see John Kerry trying to hunt, flashing as many 'thumbs up' as humanly possible to the core of photographers who were summoned into the wilderness makes me a bit queasy.
We know when candidates are acting, it is not a secret. Why do we let them get away with it?
I just can't wait for the hooooohaaaaaaaa!!! moments of 2008.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Is Hell Freezing Over?
Democrats, Republicans, (Joe Lieberman) AND President Bush are all working together on the much talked about comprehensive immigration reform bill.
I will not break down the bill because it is still in the works. But the current bill would grant 12 million illegal immigrants legal status. I have a feeling that this bill will not make it's way through the channels.
But it is good to see everyone working together on an important issue that is long overdue for reform. We will finally get to see the results of working together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
