The first major referendum on President Obama’s young administration is finished. One year after his victory in the US election the sun isn’t shining that bright any more.

In yesterday’s election Bob McDonnell, the Republican candidate, trounced his Democratic opponent Creigh Deeds, for whom Mr Obama had campaigned, by 17 points to become Virginia governor. Republicans also won the races in Virginia for lieutenant governor and attorney general.

“Tonight voters sent a warning shot to Democrats and the White House: they are tired of the spending, tired of the waste and tired of the over-reach they see coming out of Washington,” said Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the U.S. House.

It was certainly a big night for the GOP, but it remains to see if this is the beginning of 2012 presidential election victory. How do you analyze the situation?

Scozzafava's stunt favored Hoffman

The Congressional race in New York’s District 23 has made headlines nationwide.  Just three days before the votes were cast, Dede Scozzafava the Republican candidate dropped out of the race, as it became clear her chances of winning were gone.  Conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman has been declared the spoiler, who forced Scozzafava from the race.  Few have actually pinned the blame on Scozzafava’s own political philosophy.  Scozzafava tipped her hand in her withdraw speech.  She announced she was withdrawing, “for the good of the party.”  Then hours later she endorsed Democratic candidate, Bill Owens.  This writer wonders what “good of the party” means to Ms. Scozzafava, perhaps her definition and mine are not the same, unless she is referring to her true party allegiance.

The press has labeled Scozzafava a moderate.  In my commentary, Finding a New Souter, I predicted left-wing radicals would be become the new “moderates.” I was spot-on.  Scozzafava holds a hard left-wing party line on nearly every issue.  She supports the massive federal stimulus act, EFCA (the employee no-choice act), cap and trade, same-sex marriage rights, unhindered abortion rights, and the basic tenets of Pelosicare, the same as nearly every Democrat out there.  She even proudly held the not-so-coveted ACORN endorsement.  I made an effort to find a significant issue where Scozzafava differed from Progressives and all I could find was her opposition to gun-control.  It became quite clear why she endorsed the Democrat, rather than the Conservative.  As for this writer the endorsement sheds light on which party’s good she had in mind when she made her nearly tearful withdraw speech.

Time for a Change We Can Believe In

Scozzafava was nominated by party leaders not by the Republican base in District 23.  Hoffman on the other hand is not even a Republican.  He is a Conservative, a legitimate political party in New York. Why did Scozzafava dropout?  I don’t care.  She was a Democrat in Republican clothing and whether she remained or exited didn’t matter.  The people of NY23 saw beneath the mask and rejected her.  Was it a rejection of Obama?  Perhaps but that doesn’t matter.  The larger point is that Republican leaders need to sit up and take notice.  Conservatives are tired of Republicans, especially liberal ones.

The Conservative party I think should consider going national next year.  People in the country are more likely to call themselves “conservative” rather than Republican.  In fact, a recent poll found 40% of Americans consider themselves conservative, while 20% consider themselves liberal, 38% Democrat, and 32% Republican.

Building the Brand

In 1994, Democrats faced down a crushing defeat in Congressional races, losing both the House and the Senate for the first time in nearly 40 years.  At the time I expected Democrats would realize the nation had slid to the right and respond by tacking to the center.  However, Democrat strategists seem to understand something today’s Republican leaders can’t grasp, brand differentiation.  Rather than move toward the center the Democratic party made the calculated decision to move farther to the left.  This helped define their differences and kept them from losing their identity. Clinton tacked to the center because he had to work with the Republican Congress but the party had no need to do that.

Republican loses in 2006 and 2008 were largely due to the unpopularity of G.W. Bush.  Rather than reinforce conservative principles, the Republican leadership and their strategists, moved the party to the left.  Thus clouding the differences that define political ideology.  There simply should not be liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats.  The only reason such candidates exist is to play the system.  If Republicans do not take this opportunity to return to their foundation, perhaps, it is time for a multi-party system.

I’ve heard partisans argue that introducing additional parties would ruin the American political system.  I disagree.  I lived in a nation with four parties and it worked fine.  The various parties represented clearly defined slices of the political spectrum.  Big tents are for big fools.  Big tents become crowded with phonies and impostures.  Now let me say, I prefer a strong conservative Republican party and that is what I am calling for.  I’m calling for Republicans to “right-size” the tent.

You don’t hear Democrats talking about making their tent big by accepting right-wing Democrats.  No, rather they attack the so-called blue dogs and strong-arm them into submission.  Yet David Axelrod along with major news outlets known for their historic association with and endorsements of liberal candidates are clambering for Republicans to enlarge their tent and move the party left.  Why?  Because their goal is to weaken and destroy the Republican party.  They are not offering advice to help, they are baiting and hoping for a collapse.

A New Conservative Party

Republican victories in Virginia, New Jersey, and New York should not be taken lightly and should serve as a rally call.  If there are lessons to be learned from tonight’s election it is that people are not happy with the socialist agenda being pursued by Pelosi, Reid, and Obama.  Should Republicans be energized by this?  Absolutely.  This should be the herald to get Republicans to return to their core values.  If Republicans refuse to heed this call and continue this leftward drift they will be sacrificing their long-term survival.

I would question the viability of a party that loses sight of its core principles.  I would even question whether such a party is worth saving.  Whatever direction the Republicans choose, its ideals are worth saving.  That said, the party’s worth hangs upon its commitment to those values.  We suffered through eight years of Republicans compromising and in many cases capitulating to Democrats, all to the detriment of party and nation.

We need a party committed to the ideals of individual freedom, while protecting the people from abuses from within and without.  We need a party that promotes American businesses that create American jobs, not simply feeding the greed of a few at the expense of many.  This means not freely allowing American treasure to flow outward as American industry fades into the annals of history.  Business is the life-blood of a nation.  Business provides jobs, business pays taxes that drive the nation, business builds wealth for investors, employees, and the government that supports and protects it.  Business is not the enemy nor is it God.

We need a party that understands that American self-determination is essential to its survival.  It must understands the admonition of our third President who said, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none.“¹  We need a party that understands the value of money; that debts must be repaid and that repayment will necessitate economic consequences the people will not accept.  We need a party that understands a fiat currency is not a real currency.  A party that recognizes there is a need to produce something of value to facilitate and sustain healthy international trade.  We need a party that won’t accept the idea that American infrastructure can be sold to repay American debt.

The Results Are In, Right?

Today New York’s 23rd district cast their votes.  ACORN no doubt did their usual best to stuff the ballot boxes, ala Chicago-style.  Meanwhile you can bet Labor Unions roamed the streets making sure their members voted so no unfortunate accidents happened to them.  Tonight, USA Today’s website reports voting machines “broke down” in NY’s 23rd district, delaying the vote count until tomorrow.  Just too convenient, don’t you think?  Just an hour before the stroke of midnight, nearly all the east coast races are reporting preliminary results or a projected winner.  Not NY 23.  It smells if you ask me.

As I finalized this commentary results first appeared in this race.  At 11:55pm 87% of the precincts are now reporting in, the results are as follows:

• Bill Owens (D)           49% (59,630 votes)
• Doug Hoffman (C)       46% (55,166 votes)
• Dede Scozzafava (R)     5% (   6,706 votes)

Four thousand votes is within ACORN’s capabilities and if Hoffman loses he needs to insist any hint of fraud be thoroughly investigated.  ACORN is potentially more corrupt than any third-world dictatorship.

You Don’t Want To Push A Desperate Man,
Ain’t No Tellin’ What He Might Do
You Don’t Want To Corner A Passionate Heart
It May Run Right Over Top Of You
Passionate Desperation Is A Volatile Combination

There’s Something About A Desperate Man
Like He’s On Some Kind Of Mission
There’s Something About A Passionate Heart
Makes You Wanna Stop And Listen
Passionate Desperation Is A Powerful Combination
We Are Desperate Men²

1. Thomas Jefferson’s inaugural address.  George Washington warned against permanent alliances, but it was Jefferson that used the term “entangling alliances,” which clearly defines the hazards Washington feared.

2. Desperate Men, Geoff Moore.  From the Album, Threads ©1997 Chordant Records.

Democratic President Barack Obama will run for his second and final term during the election of 2012.

The really interesting question is who the Republicans will nominate to try to defeat Obama. No one has formally announced his or her candidacy for the Republican Party nomination. However, there have been speculations that Jeb Bush will try to be the third Bush in office. A third Bush is not the most likely Republican candidate in 2012, but it is not impossible.

In his time as governor of Florida Bush held up core values that true conservatives feel are essential. He also employed many highly qualified women, African Americans and minorities to top level positions more often than any other previous governor of Florida. He is also fluent in Spanish and has a Latina wife. This would likely bring his numbers up among Latinos and maybe even out Obama’s advantage in this ethnic group. Finally, he seems a lot smarter than his brother and that is never a disadvantage.  

The Bush name is a huge negative and although Americans have short memories, it’s hard to see him overcoming this. What do you think?

http://notesfromthebartender.wordpress.com/2009/10/20/art-news-from-populist-art-hero-to-plagiarising-hypocrite/

quote to tickle thought: After all, there is only one race — humanity (George Moore, Irish playwright, 1900)

news flashes: Obama rejects race as lead cause of criticism; Obama rolling into week of big diplomatic stakes (with UN in New York and G-20 group of countries in Pittsburgh); struggling at home, Obama to get warm UN welcome

America made history with its 2008 election by electing the western industrialized world’s first non-white leader as the one most likely to fix a global economic crisis. With that decision, America also chose openness and compassion in its approach to challenges since an eight-year fear-based policy of exclusion and privilege had consistently led to failure. And while America struggled with its new identity as global maverick in racial equality, its newly regained status as world leader was destined to be dramatically demonstrated when America sent its new leader to the forum of world leaders on home turf at the United Nations and in Pittsburgh during the fourth week of his first September in office.

Powerful and blessed by both geography and ideology, America can seem to lack perspective on itself through self-absorption. Americans can seem very much like the French, stereotyped as being so pleased with their home that they have little use for the rest of the world. Yet on the global stage where he will stand in equality with the leaders of the world’s 191 other countries, America’s delegate will be the crown jewel due to the profound commitment to human progress he represents on behalf of his country.

Achieving the level of power needed to lead a country is truly a well-tested gift of mastering a broad range of skills. Models of democracy and tyrants alike, the leaders of the world’s 192 countries have learned the ropes of meeting their nation’s needs. As heads of sovereign states, they are as equal in the world as are the members of a family on the smaller scale.

Rich or poor, great or small, every country of the world has a leader and each one matters at the United Nations and in the global forum. Each has a personality as distinct as the country represented, whether a European economic power or a South Pacific island nation pleading for world attention to the impact on its ability to contribute to the global family due to climate change.

As proven by the 2008 election, America loves a challenge and is fully up to meeting the demands. If anything, it may need a bigger mirror in which to fully appreciate its own glory. Watching its new president on the global stage during his first participation in the United Nations process provides just that opportunity.

Reactionary fallout from having overturned a white male monopoly on power percolated primarily from America’s white ultraconservatives during the first half of the new administration’s

Soeben erschienen: die vorzüglich gelungene Dokumentation der Veranstaltung Election Times: Harnessing the power of new media vom 19. März 2009. Im 52 Seiten starken Reader zur Berliner Konferenz finden sich die Keynotes von Nancy Scola (From ballot casters to collaborators) und Harry Dugmore (Africa rules okay – a short message on African elections and new media).

Außerdem enthalten ist ein ausführliches Transkript der Podiumsdiskussion mit dem schönen Titel It‘s new, and it‘s a movement: new media reinforce empowerment and democracy, an der ich teilgenommen habe.

Original Image sourced from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dickuhne/71015015/sizes/m/

*this is a paper I wrote for university this semester just passed- an attempt to correlate the random shite that spews from my brain in a vaguely coherent fashion*

MEDIA HYPE AND THE POLITICAL ATTENTION ECONOMY

The pervasive and ubiquitous nature of media hype validates the notion that it is a fundamental means by which a media event garnishes the user’s attention. The immediately manifest example of this is the case presented by political communication. In particular, the 2008 US election provides an exemplar situation of the importance of media hype and the impact that pre-emptive media attention had on the final result. It is through this specific media event that the nature of media hype as an attention device will be investigated.

This paper will undertake a slightly alternative approach as a means of examining some of the fundamental processes that shape our understanding of and negotiation with media hype. It will present the fundamental theory of general relativity and the spacetime continuum as an instrumental allegory for conceptualising the way media hype develops and operates. By equating media and communication theory with explicitly ‘scientific’ theory, attention is drawn to the crucial temporal and spatial implications of media hype and our interaction with it. The paper will demonstrate the inherent correlation identifiable between general relativity and media hype and how this can serve as a useful way of conceptualising media hype. The mediascape within in which media hype operates will also be examined and quantified and the way in which this space has been altered particularly through the use of ‘new media’. The existence of space also births the opportunity for the existence of ‘noise’ and coupled with the potential of the collective intelligence will be considered particularly in terms of their political ramifications.

‘General relativity’ is a theory that was developed in an attempt to comprehend the apparent effect that the gravity of objects with a significant mass appeared to have on ‘physical’ and time and space (Plabenski & Krasinski 2007 p1). It builds upon ‘special relativity’ that in essence dictates that the speed of light is constant for every observer. Each observer operates in his or her own inertial frame of reference and everything in his or her immediate vicinity belongs to that frame. The crucial difference however is that motion is relative to each frame of reference. To the observer viewing another inertial frame of reference, the procession of time and motion of the secondary observer will appear distorted.  Critical to the theory is the fourth-dimensional continuum of spacetime formulated by Hermann Minkowski to essentially place the occurrence of ‘events’ in space. For the purposes of general relativity, spacetime is visualised as a malleable, flat sheet. When objects are placed upon that sheet, their gravitational field will indent and distort spacetime, an occurrence most evident in the way it distorts the passage of light.

The passage of light is the crux of the analogy. As it is in the ‘physical’ world, light is essentially the transmission of information for without the reception of light from an event, in effect that event has not occurred in the inertial frame of the observer. If we equate that observer to the media user and the transmission of light to the transmission of information, we can draw a parallel between an event’s occurrence in the physical world and in media space. Likewise Minowski’s four-dimensional spacetime continuum equates to the topological, cybernetic media system (discussed hereafter). The effect of social and political entities upon the topological mediascape is represented by the effect that gravitational fields have on the spacetime plane.

Hypothetically, if you could somehow manage to accelerate faster than the speed of light, it is considered not impossible to travel time (in relation to the observer watching your movement) (Graunbaum  p70). Given that light is the transmission of information: what results when that information is transmitted faster than the occurrence of a given event, in this case, a media event? This notion demonstrates the phenomenon that is media hype. Media hype involves the projection of an event before it occurs before itself in the psyche of a given collective. This projection can initiate from the proprietors of a media event or from the consciousness of the users, either way this projection is a consciously constructed representation of the product. 

The disregard for ‘real’ time and space is proclaimed as one of the defining characteristics of new media information exchange (Abrahamson et al., 1988 p4-5). But rather than a disregard, I would propose that new media in fact appropriates these two fundamental elements with which we negotiate environments. Spaces induced by media use are inherently, all though not exclusively, intangible and therefore initially are generally not assigned equal value in terms of their substantiality as their concrete counterparts. However, understanding the very ‘real’ and dynamic nature of these spaces is crucial to grasping the extent of their influence, particularly within the domain of political communication.

Pertinent to this understanding is to recognise the indivisible, symbiotic relationship not only between media time and media space, but also to the ‘physical’ world. In this context the physical world is not only that which exists in the corporeal realm, but the social and political entities whose actuality we readily accept. For instance, although they are not tangible, we accept that our relationships exist and have bearing on our environment. Historically media space has been ‘characterised by a dangerous distance from the world of the flesh’ (Terranova, p42), associated with a dichotomy of irrefutable virtuality/reality. This misconception has resulted in the dismissal of the crucial ‘physical’ component in media space.  To overcome the limitations of this dichotomy, it is more constructive to visualise media space as a complex, cybernetic, topological system.  Here the ‘topological formations’ are formed by the flow of information fed into the system by the presence of the aforementioned ‘physical’ entities. Thus the constant interplay of virtual/real components interact together to create meaning and thus create space. This idea is intensified by Couldry and McCarthy:

‘..the artefactual existence of media forms within social space, the links that media objects forge between spaces, and the (no less real) cultural visions of a physical space transcended by technology and emergent virtual pathways of communication.’ (MediaSpace, p2)

Where there is space however, there is an opportunity for infection. Infection in terms of communication theory is termed ‘noise’ i.e. they are the peripheral actors that corrupt a message and alter whatever it may have originally intended to have been.  Noise inherently thrives within and cultivates the topological media scape and carries with it the ability to change our perception of the ‘physical’ world.   Despite the negative implications of corruption, noise provides the opportunity for the manipulation of representation and therefore meaning. Evidently the control of meaning is essential to the production of political messages. B. Axford presents the term ‘technologically enhanced politics’ (New Media and Politics, p53) to illustrate the copulation between political entities and the affordances of new media to inject the desired agenda into representations of media events. In the technologically enhanced political arena, the image and representation is placed in greater esteem than policy and thus the aestheticisation of political life is of paramount importance. This significance of promotion in politics is no more evident than in the astonishingly vast amount of capital injected into the media campaigns of the leading candidates of the 2008 US election. On television advertising alone Barack Obama and John McCain spent US$250 million and US$128 million respectively (Kaid, p418), even more remarkable when considered the average length of a sound byte has been reduced from 42 to less than ten seconds (Axford, p52).

Reciprocally the realm of spatial noise does not fall solely within the domain of carefully constructed media representations but also encompasses attempts to pre-emptively deconstruct a media event’s reception before it has ‘occurred’. In this way the media space is pre-cultivated to negotiate and interact with an event in a certain way. Given the dominance of the image in new media culture, the mediascape is saturated across all platforms with visual references to a given political entity. The most pertinent example of this was perhaps the development of the Obama 08 iPhone application (Kaid p419). The iPhone, the supreme advocate of the cybernetic ethos, provided the opportunity to seamlessly and constantly inject the visual iconography of the Obama 08 Campaign into the user’s daily life. Because of this incessant pre-conditioning, when the event does actually occur, in this case the Obama’s victory, it is received with a pre-cursing agenda or at the very least resigned acceptance. The user is so accustomed to the saturation of Obama within their own political microhabitat, when he assumed the presidency; the occurrence of the event had in effect already taken place before it had in ‘reality’.

This appropriation of time presents itself in a crucial and unique fashion in the dynamic, topological mediascape: in simultaneity. Although simultaneity would suggest a disregard for time and space, as mentioned previously it merely appropriates our negotiation with it. The very structure of the network implies an eradication of hierarchy and the democratisation of access and information value. This also entails a democratisation of the user’s experience of time. Given the user’s access and exposure to media ‘events’ that occur on the new mediascape particularly when mediated through social networking, this gives the impression of everything occurring simultaneously. Paul Virilio extends this further into the field of political communication. He believes that this simultaneity results in a sense of fatalism in the user experience. If everything occurs concurrently, there is no room for cause and effect and therefore a sense of inevitability ensues. Inevitability facilitates the breeding ground for media hype. A resignation to or pre-acceptance of a political outcome, in this case the outcome of the 2008 US election, already occurs before itself in the user experience. The continuous projection of the media event through online discussion and engagement embeds itself firmly in the collective psyche long before it has ‘actually’ taken place. 

Another dimension to regard in the multifaceted notion of media space is collective intelligence. The championed proponent of Web 2.0 is the concept of interactivity and it through this process of information exchange that new knowledge is formulated and added to the communal information reservoir. The blogosphere is the obvious example of a situation where through the interaction and exchange of user information, more content and therefore more ‘intelligence’ is produced.  But this goes beyond merely creating more content and serves to consolidate Anderson’s ‘imagined community’, a task that were previously the domain of mass communication broadcasters. Pierre Levy skilfully documents this shift by proclaiming ‘the new humanism’ (Levy, Collective Intelligence, p1) where we have evolved from the old humanist mantra; ‘I think’ to today’s ‘we think’.

I would extend this notion further to encompass the notion ‘we cultivate’. In order for media hype to ensue, the transmission of information needs to precede the occurrence of an event and embed itself within a collective psyche. It is implicit in the very nature of network dynamics that the audience is not merely passively receptive to the proprietors of a media event but actively contributing to the propagation of media hype. The most immediately apparent way within which information is pre-emptively transmitted throughout the collective consciousness is by means of viral media. Viral media has been traditionally manufactured and distributed by the user but counter intuitively (and often covertly) by media proprietors. It is postulated that a pivotal moment in deciding the end result of the 2008 election was Katie Couric’s interview CBS Evening Show interview with Sarah Palin (Wegner &MacManus p427). Palin’s lacklustre performance was circulated ab nauseum not only on broadcast networks but also within the blogosphere and user producer facilitators like youtube.  Spoofs of the performance (perhaps most notably Tina Fey’s parody of Palin) were copied, manipulated, appropriated but most importantly spread throughout the data sphere and thus firmly implementing a user-generated representation in the collective user consciousness.

The cultivation of collective political intelligence as demonstrated by the 2008 US election is not limited to party promoters. The Drudge Report is an influential aggregated source of political blogs that documented 798 million views during the month of October before the US elections were held (Kaid p420). The formidability of collective intelligence has ironically affected the proprietors of media events to counteractively respond by subsuming the modes of communication traditionally the domain of the information recipients. Perlmutter documents the case of Obama’s 2008 personal blog post regarding his defence for Democrats who voted for John Roberts’s nomination in the Supreme Court (Blogwars p187). The post was reportedly reflected upon for weeks thereafter as the use of a democratic and communal information channel seemingly equated Obama with ‘the people’ and therefore effectively pre-emptively embedding himself within the collective consciousness before the elections had occurred. 

It is crucial to keep in mind that media hype is generated through the input and exchange of information into the mediascape. Given the inherent democratic structure of the dynamic network, it is also important to remember that the generation of this information is not limited to the realm of media proprietors but also emanates through the exchange of information amongst users that comprise the entire collective consciousness. Hence, the attention is not confined to the engagement between user and media event but extends to encompass attention between individual nodes of the network. It is through this mutual awareness and attention to the network that media hype is developed and sustained and in turn it is through the media hype that attention to the media event is recruited and persists. The political attention economy is sustained by this mutual awareness and attention. Furthermore this mutual awareness emanates from a mediated spatial awareness that is wrought by the presence of political entities. Modulation of this space emanates from our attention to and hence interaction with these social and political factors.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Abrahamson  J.B, Arterton F.C, Orren G.R.

1988 The Electronic Commonwealth, Basic Books Inc. New York

Anderson, Benedict.

1983 Imagined communities : reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism, Verso,  New York

Axford, B.

2000 New Media and Politics. Sage Publications Ltd, London

Courldry, Nick.  McCarthy, Anna

2004 Mediaspace : place, scale, and culture in a media age , Routledge, New York

Graunbaum, Adolft                 

1968 Geometry and Chronometry in Philosophical Perspective,  University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

Kaid, Lynda Lee

2008 Changing and Staying the Same: Communication in Campaign 2008, Journalism Studies, Routledge, London

Krasinski, Andrzej. Plebanski, Jerzy

2006 An Introduction to General Relativity and Cosmology, Cambridge University Press

Levy, Pierre

1988 Collective Intelligence Becoming Virtual: Reality in the Digital Media Age (translated by Robert Bononno), Plenum Trade, New York

Perlmutter, David D.

2008 Blogwars, Oxford University Press inc, New York

Terranova, Tiziana

2004 Network Culture: politics for the information age, Pluto Press, London

When Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro’s 1984 bid for the Presidency ended in failure, the two faded into political obscurity.  Their moment in the limelight came to an end even as the votes were being tallied.  (It was 9 years before Clinton gave her political career new life.) No one stalked Ferraro and tried to ruin her for her audacity – thinking a woman could hold an office one heart-beat from the presidency. The same cannot be said for Sarah Palin.  Democrats and so-called Progressives have stalked Palin since John McCain announced her as his running mate.  The attacks on Sarah Palin are not all political but often they have been personal.  During the Presidential Campaign Palin was attacked for her expensive wardrobe yet Michelle Obama was praised for hers.  Since the election the personal attacks continue, even including attacks against her children.  The press has reported rumors and falsehoods about Palin and her family as true.  Six months into Obama’s presidency, liberals continued to lash out against her.  They have swamped Alaska with numerous Freedom of Information Act requests in fruitless efforts to dig up anything that might be used to destroy her.  Ethics charges against her have wasted nearly $2 million in public funds.  All eighteen ethics complaints against her have been dismissed.

With her resignation the complaints and inquiries have not ended.  Why?  Because liberals are out to destroy her.  They are not content to simply end her current political ambitions rather they are intent to make sure she will never challenge them again.  Currently, Palin has accrued approximately $600k in legal debts from these baseless attacks.

The looming question is, what did Palin really do to warrant such visceral hatred?  The answer seems simple, yet in reality it is somewhat more complex than simply saying she challenged Obama.  Like Ferraro, Palin was a “hail-Mary” attempt to boost a weak candidacy against an apparently unstoppable charismatic candidacy.  Both Ferraro and Palin had humble origins, both made bold moves to achieve success.  Palin had been the mayor of a small wilderness town and was the sitting Governor of Alaska.  Ferraro had represented New York in the House and held a leadership position in the Democratic Caucus.  However, the biggest difference between these women is their political affiliation.

The press thinly disguised its bias in 1984 but in 2008 the masks came off as reporters admitted publicly that the Obama campaign sent “shivers” up and down their legs.  Palin was a serious threat to Obama as she electrified the otherwise apathetic support McCain had been generating.  She was a glimmer of hope for a hopeless campaign.  The unofficial Obama press corp campaign workers felt it their duty to eliminate the threat.  Obviously, a state governor will lack international political experience and a sparsely populated state such as Alaska was unlikely to have a press-savvy Governor.  So off to work they went.  Can anyone imagine the reaction had ABC’s Charlie Gibson peered down his nose at Barack Obama?

In 1984 Mondale/Ferraro lost the popular vote 41% to 59%, however in 2008 McCain/Palin lost the popular vote 46% to 53%.  In spite of the loss, Palin retained the love of Republicans.  This constitutes a continuing threat.  Democrats and Progressives know that allowing Palin to “live” means she will likely return to haunt them at some point in the future.  Since liberals control the major media and have hypnotized Americans into believing they represent women and would never act in a sexist manner, they have no fear of being labeled as such in their relentless assault against Palin.  In 1984, Ferraro had no darling status and even if she had, any effort to crush her would have backfired.

Simply put, if Republicans had pursued Ferraro in 1985 the way Democrats have pursued Palin in 2009 they would have been labeled sexist.  Sarah Palin is being attacked boldly and blatantly without evidence or just cause.  She is being attacked because she is popular and possesses the charisma to energize rank-and-file Republicans.  The question that has puzzled me is why is Palin popular with Republicans?

That one is simple.  She is an attractive woman with a charismatic personality, who can deliver a very energetic passionate speech.  Personally, I think she lacked the political experience and depth to be on the McCain ticket.  It really did not matter, McCain was doomed no matter who his running mate was.  The economy, the war, and the historic candidacy of Barack Obama made that inescapable. However, thrusting Sarah Palin into the spotlight created a Republican star.  If Obama was the Democratic Messiah then Palin was his Republican counterpart.  She was historic, she was bombastic, and she could be the Republican future.  What makes her attractive to the Right is what makes her loathsome to the Left.

The thing I find most interesting in all of this is the potential unintended consequences of the Left’s continued assault on Sarah Palin.  First, she is gaining the political experience she lacked through the experience.  Second, her attackers are keeping her in the limelight.  The more they dig for dirt, the more airtime Palin racks up.  The final consequence of the continuing visceral hatred is that the more they hate her the more the right will love her.  Anyone recall President Clinton?  Republicans dug for dirt on him until they finally hit something, but rather than turn on him, Democrats circled the wagons around him and protected him.  He left office with positive approval numbers.

Democrats think they have finally killed Sarah Palin and have announced her political demise.  I think this may be premature.  Sort of like when everyone thought Richard Nixon’s career was over in 1964 or when the press wrote Jimmy Carter off in 1975 during the Democratic primaries.  Love her or hate her, barring a tragedy, we haven’t seen the last of Sarah Palin.  AND we can thank the Democrats for that.

Originally Published: October 2008

There has been a huge amount written about Barack Obama, some of this has come from marketing journals and magazines. These aren’t political commentary or details on media spend, but rather articles written about Obama’s marketing strategy. Obama has made himself a brand and embraced a political candidate’s worst nightmare – social media. However, this is not about ‘Brand Obama’ (there are plenty of articles about this) instead it questions the underlying premise of Obama’s strategy: Can social media mobilise?

It doesn’t make sense to run a political campaign with a huge online component unless there is a guarantee that these virtual participants will enroll and vote (hopefully for said candidate). As it stands this form of logic holds true as there is not a motivating or self-serving factor making people vote (as nice as it would be to think that politics interests all). For example, ‘Obamagirl’, who caused quite a stir on YouTube with her ‘crush’ video, failed to vote in February’s primary in her home state of New Jersey; showing that virtual participation is not always equal to real life action. This problem is something that political candidate Obama has been quick to catch on to and so too should companies that use social media in a similar way, with hopes of a similar outcome.

A motivating factor in social networks such as MySpace, Facebook or for this example Mybarackobama.com is peer pressure and subsequent social embarrassment. With this in mind, Obama (more likely his marketing people) has set about creating greater transparency on his home social network. As part of a profile on Mybarackobama.com supporters are given an ‘activity index’ which measures their recent active involvement in Barack’s campaign. The index is ranked numerically from 1 to 10 (1 lowest and 10 highest) and is visible to friends and other members. Supporters can increase their activity index by: registering to vote, calling voter lists, hosting events, raising funds etc. The ‘activity index’ works on a peer pressure principle. For example, if a group of friends or family are members of Mybarackobama.com and they see that a member of their circle is only indexing 1, it’s likely the will give that person a hard time about their lack of involvement. Peer pressure (with its high school negative connotations) is a motivating social phenomenon that Obama is using to mobilise his online supporters.

This learning is important to any company marketing their service or product through a social network. If your call-to-action involves the consumer moving from the virtual environment to in store, telephone or even voting poll then creating transparency in the user experience is important. Allowing friends to see their group’s involvement or activity in a given area means that there will be a natural form of peer pressure – even if it is only a comment on their profile. Basically, social media mobilises only when it takes on characteristics and motivations inherent in the ‘real world’ such as peer pressure.

Wednesday 5 November 2008

[Political dashboard - 2008 US Presidential election]
updated frequently!

~~~~> CLICK HERE <~~~~

The “Bob and Joan Chronicles” of Inebriated Press
May 27, 2009
 
Q.
 
Bob,
 
Some of you conservatives are whining about Obama’s trillions in new spending and the massive deficit being created, as though it should actually matter to Americans.  Well no one cares about the deficit or the risk of hyper inflation, and even if you say you do, it doesn’t matter because you’re irrelevant. There’s nothing that an individual can do.  It’s a practical impossibility.
 
You should just shut up and enjoy the ride like everyone else.  What do you think you’re accomplishing by telling other people you care about it?  You’re wasting your time you dumb ass.
 
Hugs and kisses,
 
Joan
 
A.
 
My Dearest Joan,
 
Your warm and thoughtful words regarding my time management and the concern I have about America’s debt and the risk of future economic collapse, touches me deeply, and your statement telling me to shut-up because I’m irrelevant, is both kind and loving encouragement.  How I long to set aside petty questions and gently caress your back, neck and shoulders, easing your present tensions, and then softly kiss the bridge of your nose as only I can.  But alas, such is not my mandate.  I must address your misunderstanding about the level of concern among Americans, and most importantly, the power of the individual.
 
Most Americans are worried about the national debt and many are concerned that President Obama is fiscally irresponsible.  In a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, nearly nine in ten Americans (87 percent) said they were either “very” (59 percent) or “somewhat” (27 percent) concerned about the size of the federal budget deficit.  While many Americans like President Obama personally, they don’t like many of his policies and are worried about his spending and the risky national debt.  Whether elected officials will respond to these concerns or be voted out of office remains to be seen, but more and more citizens are telling them exactly how they feel, and have even begun public protesting – as displayed on April 15th in “tax day rally’s” against the “tax and spending” of both major Parties.  Public pressure will continue to grow as we near the elections in the fall of 2010.  The liberal Democrats controlling Congress and the White House are proving they are who the conservatives said they were.  And American voters are paying attention and have begun reacting against them.  All is not lost on the fiscal front.  Momentum is changing.

Now, about your belief that the individual is irrelevant and that effort by one person — such as myself – to make change is a practical impossibility.  The United States of America was founded on the inalienable rights of the individual.  Rights that the nation’s founders believed were endowed upon individuals by their Creator, and among those rights were the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Initially those words and others in the U.S Constitution and Bill of Rights were conceptual constructs.  Until individuals — farmers, millers, merchants and others – irrelevant people mostly, took up arms and made theory a reality.  Many believed it was impossible for irrelevant rabble to defeat the British Empire, yet the fools did it.  And it was a pipe dream as well as a practical impossibility that any nation would actually try to put men on the moon, yet silly irrelevant Americans – many of them toiling in obscurity – accomplished the mission, and placed a number of their own citizens there.   During World War II, individuals from all around America rolled into Paris freeing it from the Nazi’s.  Individual men and women crossed America, carving out life and civilization in the fields, plains and mountains — building cities, towns, states.  They fought disease, floods, drought, and countless challenges.  They built a new nation – based on the rights of the individual.  And what of the individual and American invention?  How about Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Morse, George Washington Carver, the Wright Brothers, Bill Gates, and others.  Much more could be written about what common irrelevant Americans have accomplished. 

The irrelevant founded America.  They are its life-blood.  The individual is the heart of America’s constitution.  Protecting those rights and freedoms is important to us.  The impossible is what America is as a nation.  And the impossible has been accomplished from time to time by Americans, often to the surprise and disbelief of other nations.  The freedom, power and rights of the individual are why many Americans are Americans.  The fatalistic belief that the individual is irrelevant is why some American’s gave up being Europeans and left for the ‘New World’.  I and other American’s aren’t inclined to become Europeans today – even though there are some of us who want to become Western European Socialists.  The American electorate has lost its way before and found its way back.  We elected Jimmy Carter and then Ronald Reagan.  We can do it again.

And so, my fine and gentle Joan, I’m here to tell you that the battle for traditional “common sense” America is not over.  “Irrelevant individuals” still believe that they can make a difference – as they have for generations.  And as long as traditional Americans continue to believe that by their actions they will have an impact, they will in fact have an impact.  The 87% who said they were concerned about the national debt, can change the direction of this country.  Those individuals are not really irrelevant.  I am among them.

I hope this finds you cool where you want to be and warm where you need to be.

With the sweetest of wishes and most tender feelings toward you oozing from my core like moisture on my muscular pec’s in the heat of a summer night, I remain most affectionately yours,

Bob

An Open letter to Obama written by an Israeli woman

Obama, take away the pain in my stomach

Fastest Growing Search Terms

So it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that finding the top search terms can help your PPC.  You don’t have to be a Marketing guru to comprehend that allowing your PPC and SEO to work hand-in-hand enables you to create maximum efficiencies from you SEM.  But what else can this simple analysis provide?

Well the 2008 Search Reviews from the major players, gives us some fascinating yet simple views.

Search as Navigation

Of the Top 10 search terms in Google in 2008, only three could be described as non-navigational.  This could be the output of lazy typing or perhaps a result of Google toolbar being installed on more regular internet users.   Does Google’s feeling lucky help make it quicker than typing a full URL in the address bar?  Maybe it is a consequence of the new generation of surfers typing addresses in the toolbar and thinking it is the navigational tool.  (I know people that do that).

Aside from the obvious trend of people typing in simple websites that need little investigation, e.g. BBC – it also uncovers a growing influence of Social Media.

Has it evolved?

In 2006 there were different terms, however navigational searches still dominated, as did “Web 2.0″ – a major sporting event also dominated with World Cup being in position 3.  Interestingly the word video was number 7.  No sign of YouTube at the time.

The Difference Between Engines

The Top 10 UK Searches on Google in 2008

1. Facebook

2. BBC

3. YouTube

4. eBay

5. Games

6. News

7. Hotmail

8. Bebo

9. Yahoo

10. Jobs

Compare this to Yahoo

1. Britney Spears

2. Big Brother

3. X Factor

4. Oasis

5. High School Musical 3

6. US Election

7. Amy Winehouse

8. Heath Ledger

9. Kate Moss

10. Eastenders

The comparison would clearly indicate a difference in behaviour between the two main search engines in the UK.  Google Top 10 contains more navigational and generic searches (possibly related to toolbar), whilst Yahoo contains more celebrity based enquiries.  The queries also centre more around topics with potential scandal or gossip attached.

What does this mean?

Well whilst it could be argued that this comparison can be taken with a pinch of salt, there is an indication of searchers.  If I was responsible for a Finance brand, I would feel more alliance with the Google base.  If however, I was running PPC for a DVD or music retailer, I would push more towards maximising my presence on  Yahoo.  Whilst this is easy to push in pure black and white, one must remember that Google dominates the search market spectrum in the UK.  No matter what sector, who your audience is or what you are trying to say, unless you are very specific in your targets or operate in a niche, you must always use Google.

The findings in the comparison may however help you to adapt your ad copy to a certain degree.  Depending on your brand you may wish to adapt your tone of voice as well.

As a quick bonus tip, use a site called GrabAll, this tool allows you to see the search results of the major search engines side by side.  Not great for complex research or reviews, but very useful for quick snapshots.

Here is a quick update on the vote counting in the NY election. New vote totals in New York’s 20th congressional district race between Republican Assemblyman Jim Tedisco and Democrat Scott Murphy now show the two candidates have exactly the same number of votes, that’s 77,225 votes each. “At the moment I feel like we’ve joined the ranks of Florida 2000 and Minnesota 2008,” New York pollster Steven Greenberg of Siena College says. He added that, “this is the closest major political contest in the state’s modern political history.”

All eyes will now turn to the critical absentee ballots. Today a court hearing will be held to discuss when and how those ballots will be evaluated and counted. Some counties have indicated they would prefer to delay counting absentee ballots until after April 13^th, which is the deadline for receipt of military and international ballots from abroad.

The stakes in how the absentee ballots are handled are high: Five months after the Norm Coleman-Al Franken senate race in Minnesota, legal disputes continue over accusations that inconsistent standards were applied regarding which ballots should be counted.

The District 20 counties continue to “canvass” their polling machines, which means the vote totals will continue to change. When canvassing the results, officials check the data on actual voting machines, comparing the tallies to the numbers called into central county offices on Election Day. That canvassing led to repeated adjustments in vote total this week.

As I said in my earlier post about the race, this result is a major setback for the Democrats, not just in New York but also in Washington. The result of this election matters because it’s not about New York, it’s about:

• Barack Obama.
• His radical stimulus plan.
• His radical tax plan.
• His radical healthcare socialization plan.
• His radical plan to back Hamas-controlled Gaza with almost $1 billion in U.S. taxpayer aid.

And about his radical plan to appease Iran, one of the world’s most dangerous regimes.

Here in the US there has been an election in the 20th Congressional District of New York to find a replacement for Democratic Congress woman Kirsten Gillibrand, who was appointed to fill the Senate seat Hillary Clinton left vacant when she became Obama’s secretary of state.

The contest in New York is widely seen as a referendum on President Barack Obama’s spending plans. With all 610 voting precincts in the 20th Congressional District reporting, Democrat Scott Murphy led Republican Jim Tedisco 77,344 votes to 77,279. This however does not take absentee ballots into account and at the latest count just 25 votes separates the two candidates, with thousands more absentee ballots still to be counted.

More than 10,000 absentee ballots had been issued, and about 6,000 were returned by Tuesday. Counting of overseas absentee ballots will continue until April 13. The election though seemed to produce one clear loser: President Barack Obama.

The election battle between veteran GOP assemblyman Tedisco and Democratic upstart Murphy has been portrayed as a major political bellwether. But observers here suggest that the Democrat should have carried the swing congressional district easily, backed as he was by an incumbent president with a +60% approval rating during his honeymoon period in a district Obama himself carried in November.

In November last year, Gillibrand trounced her Republican opponent by a margin of 14%, and in the presidential race, Obama handily defeated Republican John McCain in the district.

The stakes are high, with the contest widely cited as an early measure of Obama’s ability to sustain his popularity and translate it into political success.

Obama had given Murphy a strong endorsement, twice sending messages to his Organizing for America e-mail list developed during the presidential campaign.

Absentee ballots tend to favour the Republicans as they mainly consist of military voters who favour the party. This is very close but with any luck the Republicans will pick up the seat and start their recovery.

Ok, I know the US election is over and forgotten, but this pro obama movie is awesome!