Cool Sites - Barack Obama Is Your New Bicycle/Hillary Is Mom Jeans

While this week's cool sites might not be as calculatingly awesome as some of the flashier ones that have popped up over this election cycle, they do have one thing going for them. What they lack in technical whiz-bang, they make up for by effectively capture the most important voting block of all: fans of Internet memes.

These two sites, writer Matthew Honan's Barack Obama Is Your New Bicycle and Jacob Walker's Hillary Is Mom Jeans, both strive to hammer home the same message: Barack Obama is cool kid, while Hillary Clinton is more of the student government square. Admittedly, these aren't exactly fresh topics; however, what the sites lack in originality of message, they more than make up for with intriguing delivery. Visitors to the sites (a membership which I hope, by now, includes you, dear readers) are greeted by little more than a giant hyperlinked statement regarding what makes Obama cool and/or Hillary lame. These phrases are generally life-affirming and nonsensical. For instance, Obama's site is filling with Christ-like examples of generosity ("Barack Obama sent you flowers", "Barack Obama helped you move a sofa"), while the Clinton site focuses on behavior normally associated with terrible roommates rather than presidential candidates ("Hillary forgot to water your plants", "Hillary works for Blackwater").

Now, why do these sites work? For one, they appeal to the surreality that seems to be inherent in Internet humor. In fact, these sites are far better examples of Internet humor than they are of political humor. The jokes here aren't focused on policy, issues, or even the ongoing campaign; rather, they're tangentially connected to the public's general opinion of the candidates. This sort of presentation could just as easily have been assigned to another well known figure a la the Chuck Norris joke movement. The fact that they happen to be about politicians gives us campaign junkies all the more reasons to smile.

Secondly, the presentation has a big impact. Many online humor sites are bogged down with non-optional streaming video, bulky Flash pages, and content that prizes involved style over substance and, importantly, frequent updates. With the minimalist presentation, the creators are allowed to focus on crafting a catchy meme that is memorable and easily repeatable. I would argue that this is the same kind of approach that we see in most successful online memes.

Another important factor in the success of these sites as memes is audience participation. Although it is the newer of the two sites, Hillary Is Mom Jeans might actually win the day in this regard. While Honan's site has the virtue of being the originator of the style, Walker made a crucial improvement to his site's layout: the addition of a user-submission box. Rather than generating all of the content internally like the Obama site (which doesn't even feature Honan's contact information, let alone a submission section), the Clinton site encourages audience ownership of ongoing creation. This factor is key for the success of any would-be viral movement, and it's nice to see this particular meme moving quickly in that direction.

it also appears that Honan approves as well, stating in a TechBlog interview that "Jacob Walker created this great parody site of BOIYNB. He really nailed it, I think. It's a riot, but it also demonstrates why her campaign is in trouble".

Quite right on all accounts, Mr. Honan. Quite right.

BOOK REVIEW: An Army of Davids

Oh, Glenn Reynolds. You almost had me. Really, you did. I was going along, reading through my copy of your long-titled An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths, and I was really on board. See, in the beginning of your book, you seem like a reasonable individual. You take on the music industry in a way that I can only describe as reasonable. Sure, in order to do so you had to fund and establish your own home studio, but that's part of it, right? A great example of how the emergence of relatively cheap, pro-sumer electronics has combined with the an independent spirit to revolutionize popular music. Rad!

Then, I got worried. The chapter on welcoming "big box" booksellers to a neighborhood rubbed me wrong, somehow. Fuck atmosphere or alternative selection! John Grisham and a latte for $15, right? It seemed like an interesting argument to make, considering that many in the retail world would consider stores like Borders or Barnes and Noble Goliaths rather than Davids, but ok. I got it. They were offering a David-y service, creating community rather than maximizing profit. Corporate bookstores... have our best interests in mind?

After that, though, you lost me, Glenn. The whole bit about citizen surveillance of terror suspects is what got me to close the book for good. While I can admit that the examples that you used were persuasive, the fact remains that encouraging that kind of Junior Stasi spy-on-your-neighbors bullshit is not the kind of technological effect that I consider laudable. In fact, I'm not even sure it completely fits, considering the fact that all of these Davids with camera phones and a nosy disposition are generally taking orders from the biggest Goliath there is (the government) when it comes to figuring out who's supposed to be dangerous this week.

Thus, I will not be finishing your book at this point, Glenn. I just don't have it in me this week.

Political Video Tuesday - Viva Obama

Well, if Obama plans on capturing a primary victory in Texas next week, he'll certainly need to capture the sentiment expressed in this video. Personally, I'd be satisfied if I could capture one of those fine-looking hats that those gentlemen are wearing.

For good measure, and for all of my Spanish-speaking friends (Emily, I'm looking at you), here's another video. Viva Obama, and viva reggaeton.

Social Network Update VI - The Competition

For today's social network update, I figured I might give Barack Obama's groups a breather this week in favor of scanning around for the competition. That's right, the other guys. The opponents. The rivals. I'm talking, of course, about Hillary Clinton supporters.

Before Obama fans can get geared up to take on the Republicans in the fall, we have to survive a challenge from within our own party. Clinton has a strong base and great name recognition, but she isn't exactly the sharpest candidate in terms of digital campaign strategy. How does this lack of online acumen translate on Facebook and Care2? Well, there's only one way to find out.

FACEBOOK

The first thing you'll probably notice when searching Facebook for Hillary Clinton is the negative groups. Simply put, there are lots of them. Out of the first 10 results for a group search on Facebook, eight groups are anti-Clinton. They run the gamut, from ideological ("Hillary Clinton is the Anti-Christ! VOTE CONSERVATIVE!") to sexist ("Hillary Clinton is a Man and I will not Vote for Him") to the hyperbolic ("If HIllary Clinton is Elected, I'm Moving to Canada!"). By contrast, a group search for Barack Obama reveals a completely inverted ratio, with only two anti-Obama groups ("Stop Barack Obama", "Against Barack Obama") and none of the overt vitriol found among the Clinton groups.

So, what gives? Why is Hillary Clinton so grossly unpopular on Facebook despite locking Obama in a virtual stalemate nationally? My guess is that Facebook just doesn't cater to Clinton's natural constituency. Not only is it an online community (an area of organization that doesn't exactly play to Clinton's strength), but it's a primarily youth-based group. Despite having the support of George McGovern, Clinton has failed to gain the attention of McGovern-style supporters; by and large, young voters and intellectuals have flocked in droves to Barack Obama, leaving Clinton's cupboard relatively bare.

CARE2

Over at Care2, things are just as bleak. While the folks on Care2 are far more civil than their Facebook counterparts, they're also far less interested in the Clinton campaign. Care2 lacks both the negative groups that are so popular on Facebook and the positive groups that could actually do the campaign some good. While Barack Obama's Care2 supporters hover somewhere around 1,000 (not great by any stretch of the imagination, Clinton's numbers are even worse; in the two groups that support her, Clinton can count just over 200 Care2 members as active supporters.

Obama decided early on to make online organizing a cornerstone of his campaign, and it's paying off. Clinton's skill at 90s-style politics left her both unfamiliar with emerging trends and unwilling to take the risks necessary to overcome the gap. If there's one base cause for her flagging online support, that might be it.

Cool Sites - Huffington Post Donation Tracker

I can only spare a quick update today, but I think it's a pretty good one. As I was bouncing around the blogs last night, I discovered this interesting feature over at the Huffington Post. They call it Fundrace 2008, and it's a fascinating look at fundraising.

Using FEC records from the past two Presidential election cycles, the people at the Post have mapped out personal donations across the country. So, if you've ever been curious about how much your favorite celebrities (Paul Simon: $4,600 to Chris Dodd for 2008) or even your neighbors (a lady in my parents' neighborhood: $2,000 to Bob Graham for 2004) have donated to political candidates, this is the place to go.

Play around a little. It's a pretty intuitive site. My only complaints could be remedied by a broadening of scope, but I don't consider that a bad sign.

Political Video Tuesday - Hillary Goes Negative

I try to limit myself to posting videos that are either a) really clever or b) Internet -related. Those descriptions don't really cover this particular clip, but in honor of tonight's Wisconsin primaries, I'll let it slide.



An interesting choice for attack. Clearly, Clinton hasn't yet fuly embraced the negative, because this ad's pretty tame. Personally, I think Obama's smart for not agreeing to a debate that would essentially be free publicity for a Clinton campaign whose money troubles are well-publicized. Time will tell whether or not the voters of Wisconsin agree.

EDIT: They do not. It's Wednesday morning in America, and Wisconsin likes Obama. CNN reports that the Illinois senator won across almost every demographic group. It's looking increasingly likely that Clinton's only really option is to go fiercely negative in the upcoming states and debates, but even that might not be enough. Then again, this is the same woman who described this political negativity as "the fun part", so I'll hold off on predictions for now.

Social Network Update V – Start Your Own Revolution

This week's social network update focuses less on my experiences in the already-established Obama-related groups on Facebook and Care2 and more on what it might actually be like to get in on the action myself. One of the thing that I've seen touted regarding the political social network revolution is the ease with which any member of the community can create and organize a real-world event using online tools. Since this is obviously something to crow about, I figured I should give it a shot.

Now, I've been creating events on Facebook ever since they added the option all those years ago. Thus, going the the process of creating yet another event there wouldn't really give me any insight into the process. So, I've decided to fudge things a little and use, in addition to Care2, Barack Obama's official social network as the proving ground for my event experiment. One of the great advantages Obama's site has over the other social networks is its complete focus on the candidate. This approach allows community members to appeal to an already-friendly base, but also requires them to stand out among all of the other Obama-related events. Thus, it should be interesting.

MY BARACK OBAMA

Creating an event on Barack Obama's social network is... well, really easy. I mean, really easy. The designers behind this site definitely seem to grasp the fact that Obama's network will be used by masters and neophytes alike, and their design choices reflect an understanding of how both groups operate.

Upon signing in to your network pages, a button click will take you to your event portal, which shows you what events you've signed up for, what ones you've attended in the past, and how to set up an event of your own. Clicking the creation button brings you to the event setup page, where you'll determine the location and type of event you'd like to host. Would-be hosts are given a list of event types to choose from, along with simple descriptions of each type. This makes the selection process quite simple, which in turn must do wonders for the site's internal organization system.

Once the initial step is out of the way, things open up a bit. Like most social networks that offer event setup, Obama's site is fairly open and customizable. The setup categories are organized in a simple "What, When, Where" format, a style that would be uncomplicated for even the most novice networker. One thing that Obama's site has that is missing on Facebook (at least in my experience) is an email alert system; depending on your preferences, the site will automatically remind anyone signed up for the event a certain number of hours prior to the start. As someone who often slogs through email lists doing this kind of thing by hand, I can tell you that this sort of added touch is immensely handy.

CARE2

Care2's approach to events is different from any other social network that I've come across. The site splits its "Get Togethers" into two categories: Events (which consist of traditional physical gathering) and Action Days (which are collective calls to action unrestricted by physical location). This approach is convenient, especially when it comes to coordinating large groups of activists or volunteers.

The Events page is set up similarly to all other basic social network event managers; however, Care2 does have a unique trick up their sleeve. Included with all of the necessary event management tools is the promotion features, which allows event creators the option of advertising their gathering, free of charge, to up to three groups of which the creator is a member. This feature allows for maximum visibility while still maintaining the sense of community and boundaries that makes Care2 the network that it is.

On the other side of the coin, the Action Day option, while less detailed, is arguably easier to execute. Without the physical constraints/demands of an event, an Action Day request requires less commitment from potential participants. Action Days are also eligible for Care2's promotion feature, allowing even more people to get in on the same low-impact call for action.

I think this may be the first time since I've started this examination that Care2 has come out on top of Facebook (which, although it wasn't analyzed in this particular article, does not feature anything remarkable in the way of event management). Since the Care2 community is built on the premise of political action, I guess it stands to reason that organization might be one of their strong suits.

Strategy Friday - An Email, from Teddy? How Thoughtful!

Today, while checking my email at work, I noticed a curious-looking address line near the top of my inbox. Titled simply “I’m with Obama”, the email was (apparently) from none other than Mr. Massachusetts himself, Senator Ted Kennedy. My excitement untempered by experience or expectation, I clicked through the email to find… a fundraising request from the Obama campaign.

Shock! Outrage! Basic disgust!

All joking aside, the email (one of many from the Obama campaign in the past few days) got me thinking about the use of famous names in address lines of campaign emails. I mean, when it comes right down to it, who does the campaign think they’re fooling? No one actually believes that the emails they’re receiving are from Ted Kennedy/Michelle Obama/Barack Obama, so why go to all the trouble of placing their name in the address line? Why not save it for the subject, and just have the address simply read “Obama for America”?

Or, more importantly, is there a chance, in some roundabout, upside down way, that this kind of marketing strategy actually works?

Fortunately, an ongoing conversation in my other inbox provides some insight into the method behind this madness.

In a recent conversation on the Progressive Exchange listserv, the topic of email attribution and names was given a full examination. To make a long set of emails short, the folks at ProgEx generally agree that using names is generally ok a) in high-profile campaigns and b) when the "sender" is already famous anyway. This combination seems to suggest that familiarity will outweigh any questions of authenticity. However, the folks on the listserv urged caution. One participant pointed to the dangers of email from less well-known or low-profile non-profits getting filed as spam due to its unclear sender status. Another pointed out that such a scheme, especially when used in a "man on the street" style situation, might require valuable subject line space to be used just to clearly communicate the organization's purpose behind the email.

In other words, when it comes to mass emails, most organizations would do well to simply play it safe and include their organization's name in the "From" line of any official communications.

Barack Obama and Ted Kenendy, on the other hand, can play by an entirely different set of rules.

BOOK REVIEW: Constituent Relationship Management: The New Little Black Book in Politics

Wow. What a difference a week makes. As you might recall, I spent last Wednesday's post reviewing MoveOn.org's 50 Ways to Love Your Country, a handbook designed for political laypeople and would-be weekend activists everywhere. This week, I present: the polar opposite.

While MoveOn's book was great for energized citizens looking to begin their life as political activists, it lacked teeth when it came to actual, on-the-ground political tech strategy. That's where the the Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet comes in. In their series of free reports (available here, naturally), they cater to exactly the opposite audience that MoveOn's book is designed for. These documents are for people who are interested in the inner workings of political and activist organizations, especially when it comes to technological impact. In other words, they're not what you might describe as "light reading".

The insider approach works well for the task at hand, though. While I lack the required organizing experience needed to understand some of the finer points the report tries to get at, I'm familiar enough with the general "state of the state" to appreciate the arguments on a macro level.

When it comes down to it, it seems that organizations and campaigns have two choices when it comes to constituent relationship management (CRM). They can either treat their targeted audience/volunteers as piece of a business plan or broadcast model, or they can use the tools available to identify and build actual working relationships with the most dedicated volunteers. Clearly, the IPDI document favors the second option, and sets out to provide strategies and examples of how new software can be leveraged into campaign success.

The one conclusion that I found disheartening was the realiities of use and acceptance of online CRM systems. The report basically concludes that the vast majority of political campaigns or organizations have very little incentive to switch to newer, more innovative CRM means. That leaves underdogs and fringe candidates as the typical ideal adopters. While this still leaves developers with a fertile proving ground, it would be nice to see what kinds of advances might be made in an arena that was less disposed to change resistance.

In the end, I have a feeling that I'm going to get very familiar with IPDI's reports in the weeks to come. I have two more on tap for class, and am eyeing a third that looks like interesting... leisure reading.

Jesus, I really am a grad student, no?

Political Video Tuesday: John.He.Is

As TechPresident's Joshua Levy pointed out yesterday, this next video is so meta, it hurts. And I love it.


I'm telling you, man. It's all about user-generated content. I mean, name the last memorable online political video or advertisement you saw that was paid for or developed by a campaign itself? The Mike Huckabee/Chuck Norris video comes to mind, I guess, but that was memorable precisely because it played upon the DIY/meme culture inherent to the Internet. Other than that, though, nothing comes to mind.

Certainly, people have tried. You might've seen "Hillary and the Band", Hillary Clinton's grab at the youth vote from a few weeks ago. It has all the hallmarks of what the kids like, right? Ironic Photoshopping! Rock and Roll! The Blogs! Right. It's about as inspiring and/or entertaining as it sounds. Witness:



Clearly, strategists and campaigns have witnessed the power of the Internet as a content delivery system. Why they haven't been able to replicate the success found by other, independent sources is a question whose answer is going to make someone very rich someday. My guess? It all goes back to authenticity. Commercialization be damned, the Internet is still a populist place. Netizens (*cringe*) have finely tuned bullshit meters, and can sniff out pandering from miles away. Huckabee's video worked because his campaign demonstrated familiarity with this fact and decided to play along. Clinton's video failed because hers didn't.

Social Network Update IV - Get Active

It's Monday, so that means it's time to check in with Barack Obama's progress in the world of social networking. Today, I figured we could take a look at how easy it is to get involved in offline campaign events using the tools and information found on each of the social network services. Since online organization is only as useful as its real-world effects, organizational power matters. As usual, we'll consider Facebook first.

FACEBOOK

As I've mentioned in previous posts, Facebook's two most popular Obama groups engage in some useful division of labor: "One Million Strong for Barack Obama" serves as the campaign's information repository, while the newer "I Endorse Barack Obama, and I'm Telling My Friends!" is more geared towards explicit calls to action. Naturally, this leads to different sorts of action opportunities found in each group.

Visitors to "One Million Strong..." will find, tucked among the seemingly endless rolls of links towards the official site, opportunities to engage in all of the volunteer actions found on Obama's own social network site. From phonebanking to donation matching, no form of help is left unrepresented or unsanctioned. In fact, that may be the one knock against this group's usefulness. All of the links found here point users towards Obama's own site, reducing the Facebook group to an unnecessary middleman. While this makes sense from a political organizing standpoint, offering some Facebook-exclusive opportunities would go a long way towards justifying the existence of this group past its use as an advertisement for Obama's (in this case) rival network.

Over at "I Endorse...", things are a little more grassroots-y. Instead of focusing on the volunteer opportunities already available on the official campaign site, "I Endorse..." is more concerned with Facebook-based activism and endorsement. To this end, they provide guidelines for Facebook messaging campaigns, create unique events for each Democratic primary contest, and offer state-specific door hangers and graphics that feature their endorsement message. While these efforts might not reach the same amount of people as the official campaign communications (EDIT: As of April, the membership numbers of the official group versus this one are close to the 10-to-1 range), they represent an interesting approach to delivering unique action opportunities. Say what you will about MoveOn.org, but their mobilization efforts are always worth talking about.

CARE2

Things on Care 2 are... not much different from things on Facebook, at least in regards to activism opportunities. Aside from linking to official campaign events, Care2's largest Obama group currently offer no organized activism opportunities on behalf of the candidate. Personally, I'm a little surprised by this, and wonder exactly why an active community like Care2 doesn't have a more energized, organized Obama fanbase. Is it something about the idealism that makes the idea of actual campaign politics unappealing? Or is it something about the candidate himself? Does anyone out there have any ideas?

Strategy Friday - Mo' Money, Mo' (Server) Problems for Obama.com?

For political candidates, demand is the name, and goal, of the game. However, as with any desireable thing, too much demand can leave campaigns scrambling to catch up. After surviving Super Tuesday, Barack Obama's campaign has done everything in its power to spin the stalemate into a victory. Whether that strategy works or not, the fact remains that voters seem to be taking even more notice of Illinois' junior senator. Yesterday, I wondered exactly how the Obama campaign might handle this increased interest/scrutiny.

Well, it turns out that, at least where the Internet is concerned, the answer is "not all that well, really".

After this week's strong turnout, I decided it was finally time to open up my wallet for the Obama campaign. I went to their website's donation page, and... was greeted by a message letting me know that, due to the unexpected surge of traffic after Super Tuesday, the Obama campaign's website was experiencing technical difficulties.

Huh.

What a terrible time for a breakdown. I'll head back when the site is back up, but I wonder how many casual donors might've been turned off. Probably not many, but it's still a problem worth addressing. Having a reliable Internet presence won't win you the nomination, but it certainly won't hurt.

The way I see it, the answer to this problem is one of two things. Either:

a) the campaign wasn't properly prepared for the post-Super Tuesday wave of supporters.

or

b) the campaign was prepared; the wave of supporters simply exceeded their expectations.

For the candidate's sake, I'm hoping for the last one. With nothing decided, everyone's looking forward to a protracted fight, and every dollar's going to count. Obama has a natural advantage in fundraising; he boasts more non-"maxed out" donors than Sen. Clinton all while outraising his competitors to the tune of $32 million in Jaunary alone. Now, if the Obama campaign can find a way to allow it apparently eager donors to actually, you know, fork over even more cash, the system will be operating as expected.

Super Tuesday Special - Putting the "Aware" Back in "Delaware"

By now, I'm sure you've all seen the results from yesterday's so-called "Super Duper Tuesday" primaries. For a day that was supposed to decide so much, things sure do seem to be pretty much where they started, at least on the Democratic side. Though the stalemate may be frustrating, yesterday's results satisfied me as soon as I heard the following sentence:

"CNN projects that Senator Barack Obama will win the Delaware primary".

At that moment, tucked in a booth at Bourbon, half-lit and shouting, rolling out of bed for a 5am drive up the northern slice of the Delmarva Peninsula seemed like a bargain price for the results that Wolf Blitzer was now sharing with the rest of the country.

To be fair, I'm not really that delusional. The five of us (myself, roommates Annette and Aaleeya, and ringleaders Gillian and JoJo) probably weren't terribly important pieces of Obama's plan to win Delaware. What we lacked in individual experience or significance, however, was bolstered by sheer numbers; there were many volunteers on the streets of Dover today, and all of the ones that I saw supported the same candidate.

We knocked on doors, mostly, in neighborhoods where kids from Georgetown wouldn't typically be found on Tuesday mornings. Or ever. Though we made our rounds early in the morning, everyone who answered greeted us with behavior that ranged from courtesy (at worst) to enthusiams (at best). Even though it was early, many had already voted.

Later in the day, we stood on the corners of busy intersections and waves the handmade signs we'd been provided back at campaign headquarters. Here, finally were the jeers that we'd been expecting all day. Once, an elderly lady rolled down her window and faked us out with a thumbs-up that turned quickly (and violently) downward as she passed in her car. Later, stopped at a long light, a bearded, ponytailed Harley cast-off and his (runner-up) trophy wife informed me that they were "Hillary people". When I asked if they might reconsider, he deadpanned a "Nope." before pulling away through the intersection.

We left earlier than we could've, after a day of Amish food and civic engagement. Most of us dozed on the way home, rousing as we neared the district in time to hear the radio reports of Obama's projected victory in Georgia. After the results started pouring in, it was off to Bourbon, where we celebrated victories and drowned sorrows in a crowd reminiscent of a March Madness game.

I'm not sure what last night means for the nomination. I do know that, whether getting out the vote in that nation's first state or reeling onto Wisconsin Ave. and shouting "I love Kansas!" after another Obama victory, I really did have the Super-est of Tuesdays.

BOOK REVIEW: MoveOn's 50 Way to Love Your Country

Sometimes, it's a shame that MoveOn.org's name is so instantly polarizing that it renders most non-partisan discussion of its relative merits impossible. Idealogies aside, there are a great many things that MoveOn advocates that are healthy for politics regardless of party affiliation. Chief among these agendas is MoveOn's support of bottom-up, people-centric political action. In the book MoveOn's 50 Ways to Love Your Country, contributors from across the country offer stories that read like two parts instruction manual, one part Chicken Soup for the Political Soul.

Most of the advice offered by the MoveOn members responsible for the book runs the gamut, ranging from common sense reminders to tactical strategies on a host of grassroots activities. Ever wanted to know the most effective way to get your letter to the editor published? They've got that covered. How about strategies for voter registration drives? They're in your corner. Most forms of grassroots action are covered in short, simple, easy to reference chapters, making field use possible and profitable.

When I started reading this book, I figured that, with some of the names changed and a few different case studies here and there, this book could easily be adapted to serve politically-minded individuals from both ends of the spectrum. However, the more I think about it, the more I feel that the problem of adaptation might go deeper than some surface changes. I often get the sense that the political makeup of the right might discourage the kind of grassroots, can-do activism that you see so often on the left.

I know there are lots of angry conservatives out there, but I don't see that anger poured into citizen-centered activity. Rather, conservative outcry is often funneled through institutions, such as the National Rifle Association or Focus on the Family. This trust in the establishment brought me back to George Lakoff's concept of the right's reliance on the stern father motif when it comes to political action. Does that sort of framework prevent the same kind of community action that we see from the left? Or, are conservatives just not yet frustrated enough to take action? Remember, it took an impeachment of a president and an illegal war to stir the Democrats into high-profile action. The unfortunate reality is that we may only see conservative organization as a response to the goals that progressives are currently working to achieve. I guess Hinduism has that part right: it's all just one big circle.

Political Video Tuesday: Yes, We Can

This is everywhere by now, but I'd feel like a bad supporter if I didn't link just one more time...



It's been a busy week around here, as my friends and I are trying to not so singlehandedly deliver the mid-Atlantic states to Barack Obama. We're in Delaware today (an experience which will get an entry all its own) and will spend the weekend working in the Potomac triangle of DC, Maryland, and Virginia. Plus, marvel as I resume my frightening trip into the world of online activism. BLAMMO!

For stories on all of that and more, keep on coming back.

Social Network Update III - Level of Discourse

As my adventure into Barack Obama's social network presence continues, I figure it's probably long past time to explore one of the key components of any network group: the discussion board. Home to well-reasoned discourse and terrible, terrible trolls alike, discussion communities are often representative of the state of the movement. How would the conversations on Facebook differ from those on Care2, and what would that mean for the groups? Sadly, there's only one way to find out: we have to hit the boards.

FACEBOOK

Since there are many different social communities dedicated to Obama and his candidacy, I'll be looking at messages from two separate communities. The first, "I endorse Barack Obama -- and I'm telling my friends!", is an activist group that advocates direct support of and involvement in the Obama campaign. That being the case, you would expect the messages found here have a distinctly energized tone, for both good and ill.

The group is extremely new, having been formed within the last week, but already the messages cropping up seem to bear our my expectations. For instance, the first message that appeared when I loaded up the message board was an invective-laced accusation regarding Obama's apparent status as a Muslim terrorist. Though this well-intentioned fear-monger was quickly shouted down, it seems like this kind of thing is going to be par for the course going forward.

The community that is forming around this group handles the trolls and weirdos as best as they can, and uses the board mainly as a bulletin space for calls to action, announcements of milestones, and heads-ups for Obama-related events. So far, actually debate/discussion seems to fall more under the auspices of the older, more well-established Obama group "Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack)".

When I arrived at this board, I was expecting the worst, simply because... well, that tends to be what politics brings out in people. I was surprised to find that the board, with a few exceptions, was fairly respectable when it came to the level of discourse. Part of this comes, I suspect, from eagle-eyed moderation; as I perused, I noticed topic deletions sprinkled throughout the threads. The supporters who are here also seem to take trolls with a grain of salt: numerous threads are devoted to venting about everyone's favorite type of internet rabble-rousers. In one, a particularly proactive community member (and apparent fan of It's A Wonderful Life) suggests donating to Obama every time a troll posts.

In terms of topics for discussion, the board is currently in the throws of Super Tuesday fever. This post, which I chose because of its proximity to my destination for tomorrow, captures the general feeling of many around the board. Elsewhere, there are numerous topics devoted to frustrations regarding Obama's opponents; in particular, Hillary Clinton seems to be drawing the most amount of fire, well ahead of any Republican candidate. The distaste ranges from outrage (a post regarding alleged Clinton puush-polling in California) to tactical (a breakdown of Mark Penn's latest talking points) to downright Drudge-ian (an apparently shocking video that "the Clintons don;t want you to see!!!").

As a site dedicated to Obama support, there is very little room for a middle ground approach when it comes to Obama's chief rival. However, the board does show some sense of awareness when it comes to life in the world of online politics. This post, which may be my favorite of the ones I've read so far, contains a conversation about the role of trolls and agitators in these kinds of communities. Far from being self-exonerating, many of the messages contain admissions of trolling by board members on Clinton sites, and seems to reflect the belief that "everyone's doing it". Though the group's view of such behavior seems to be negative overall, most of them still aren't willing to grant Clinton, or her supporters, a break.

More surprising is the group's preoccupation with Ron Paul. Instead of focusing on Any of the Republican frontrunners, most messages about the GOP are in regards to the TExas congressman's longshot bid for the White House. From complaints about his supporters, to ways in which to win them over, the Facebook crowd is either swept up in the Paul "revolution" with the rest of the internet, or aware of the power that Paul's bloc wields as a potential swing group in the upcoming election. Whatever the reason, though, you have to admit that, for someone with no with no shot at the nomination, this guy's everywhere.

One thing that's lacking from the board (as far as I can tell, at least) is a strong presence of undecided voters. People don't seem to be coming here in order to figure out if Obama is their candidate of choice or not; the people who have chosen to be active in these groups all seem fairly set when it comes to who gets their vote. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does remove the possibility of non-partisan information/persuasion sessions.

Another possible problem with the Facebook forums is the lack of lingering threads. Most discussions that I found on the site were created within 76 hours of my first searches. Going deeper, I found that, in most cases, all messages found on the first few pages were new rather than ongoing. There are a couple of problems with that. First of all, a lack of old, or even sticky, threads leads to redundant posting, as newcomers attempt to assert (for the 37th time) that Obama is not a Muslim/white supremacist/anti-Christ/etc. Second, the value of new content overshadows the need for the kind of foundational posting that takes a message board from a bulletin space to a community. In this climate, the possibility for the lengthy debates found on other boards is lost.

Overall, the message boards of the Facebook groups are far less painful than I was expecting. While the occasional troll slips past the keeper, the community generally fulfills its goal as a place where Obama supporters can come to have their beliefs reinforced. Undecided voters who wish to participate would do well to do what I just did: lurk.

CARE2

It goes without saying that Care2 is a very different animal than Facebook. As a community of progressive activists, you would expect their message boards to be quite different from those found on a general use social network site. For the most part, however, the same concerns and content found in the Facebook groups is present in the Care2 forums, albeit in a smaller setting. The people who participate in the Care2 groups are, generally, against Hillary Clinton, for Barack Obama, and ready to do something to help the process along. Thus, the instances of troll abuse are low to nonexistent. If anything, there may be even more outrage present on the Care2 boards than the Facebook one. In one post, the topic starter takes an endorsement of Obama in the direction of a screed against lobbying and special interests. In another, an earnest citizen calls for the campaigns to remove race and gender from their arsenal of potential attack points. On the whole, the Care2 boards seem to be more focused on political discussions, with campaign minutiae taking a back seat to political discussion. That said, the topics discussed do not deviate significantly from those found on the Facebook boards.

However, in spite of their similarities, the Care2 boards do offer several differences from their Facebook counterparts, to both their credit and detriment. For instance, Care2 allows users to embed images within their posts, which allows for interesting visual aids in addition to inspired argument. However, this advantage is nullified by Care2's difficult-to-navigate dating system, which uses the "x days ago/x months ago" display style for archived posts rather than the easier, more explicit dating method found on Facebook.

In the end, the Care2 boards may be more civil than the Facebook ones, but their small size and scope renders them less useful for daily visitors than their Facebook counterparts. Though Care2 wins the battle on many fronts in the worlds of online organizing, the campaign forum fight can be more successfully fought on the larger, more well-organized Facebook boards..