Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

A Preview of Election 08 - Podcasting Politicians 134

Posted by Zonk
from the bandwagon-meet-these-guys dept.
Video Blogger writes "The LA Times predicts that the 2008 election will feature the rise of Podcasting Politicians, as strategists from both parties try to ride the latest trends to secure a victory in 2008. 'You'll not only be able to text people with messages, you'll be able to raise money, deliver video, audio, create viral organizing -- where one person sees something really interesting and it gets passed on and on,' says Donnie Fowler, a Democratic strategist."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Preview of Election 08 - Podcasting Politicians

Comments Filter:
  • by yroJJory (559141) <me@@@jory...org> on Saturday July 22, 2006 @07:28AM (#15762501) Homepage
    ...Bill Frist Post!?

  • by eurleif (613257) on Saturday July 22, 2006 @07:29AM (#15762504)
    I hereby predict that podcasts will cease to be cool by January '09.
  • I really don't care (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rolfwind (528248) on Saturday July 22, 2006 @07:30AM (#15762506)
    unless I have a better choice than a douche versus a turd, which seemed to be all that was being offered in the presidential elections the last few years.

    This technology might be fun if it helps get a darkhorse nominated, but because the people in the age group most likely to listen to podcasts don't bother to vote (demographically), I think it will be a nonissue.

    In any case, I would much rather not hear about the presidential elections until '08 itself, thank you very much. Perhaps podcasts can play a role in '06 elections. Yes, it's likely to be more local, but while everybody is shitting their pants waiting for Bush to leave office in '08, you can vote for people and hopefully get them into all sort of positions that will give his administration a tough time. After all, even the president/administration has to work with people (senators, congressmen, local politicians) to make various things happen.*

    *I'm independent before people accuse me one being for 1 crappy party or the other.
    • but while everybody is shitting their pants waiting for Bush to leave office in '08

      If all the people who cared enough to have an opinion actually cared enough to vote, this wouldn't have been an issue.


      unless I have a better choice than a douche versus a turd, which seemed to be all that was being offered in the presidential elections the last few years......Yes, it's likely to be more local

      Pretty much anyone who ends up in the White House had to win a smaller local election. You won't get better choi
    • by standbypowerguy (698339) on Saturday July 22, 2006 @09:19AM (#15762678) Homepage
      "you can vote for people and hopefully get them into all sort of positions that will give his administration a tough time"

      Independents generally don't troll Democratic. Your attitude is precisely why, even though I dislike where the Republican party is going (religious idiocy, hawkishness, inept foreign policy, restriction of domestic freedoms, prioritizing commercial interests above public interests, etc), I won't consider registering Democratic or voting for most Democrats. If the Democratic party would propose and deliver a coherent, workable agenda, instead of attempting to cripple our government through obstructionism and presenting themselves simply as the "we're not Bush" party, I'm sure there are a lot of Republican moderates like myself that would switch.

      Embracing centrist views is the only way Democrats will garner enough votes to get elected in force. Bill and Hillary and a handul of others understand this, why don't the rest of you? I'm not pleased with where this country is going, but I simply don't see anyone offering viable alternatives.
      • You'd rather vote for someone with an agenda that you disagree with then vote for someone with no agenda? I'd consider someone without an agenda to be much less malicious than someone with one that is harmful.
        • When it comes down to a choice between Bush and Kerry, absolutely. The evil you know is often more tolerable than the one you don't. At least Bush is willing to make decisions and stick by them. It's unfortunate some of them turned out poorly, but I think the problems in the White House really stem from Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld.

          When I framed my previous comment, I was thinking more of Congress than the White House. Obstructionism has crippled our Legislature, allowing the Executive to run amok in some w
          • The evil you know is often more tolerable than the one you don't.

            Bush isn't evil. Merely incompetent.

            but I think the problems in the White House really stem from Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld.


            So obviously it would have been better to bring in a new team.

            Obstructionism has crippled our Legislature, allowing the Executive to run amok in some ways.

            Good. I haven't seen a single idea pass congress in the past 5 years that was worth implementing. Get back to me when they have a FUCKING CLUE and some good ideas.
      • by BitterAndDrunk (799378) on Saturday July 22, 2006 @10:13AM (#15762807) Homepage Journal
        The idea that Dems have no coherent agenda is laughable. . . it's like saying there's no in-fighting in the Republican party (another idea popularized on right wing radio). Both are simply untrue.

        The major difference, however, is where the leadership is coming from. Repubs are primarily driven by a few think tanks and the Karl Rove brigade, which was able to whip people into shape up until this year. We've seen just in recent weeks Bill Frist (and many other Repubs) break away from the "Party Agenda" to ideas favoring what they think their constituencies desire. Which is natural; the current administration (some argue the entire Republican party) has fallen into deep disfavor among the people and Repubs are scrambling for damage control.

        Dems are going through a different transition, driven by the "Vast Left Wing Conspiracy" characterized by MoveOn. There's in-fighting right now, because many of the Democratic leaders aren't leading us in a direction we're willing to go. Asserting Lieberman or Hillary are centrist is laughable; they're Right.

        Many people feel that the one thing is needed at this point is obstructionism. Bush and cronies have gotten us nowhere good with a rubber stamp congress, and requires someone(s) to stop him. Bush is not nor will ever be a coalition builder. His dirty political master Rove has ensured that none of the current Republican flock will be effectual in building a coalition, with few exceptions. (Those exceptions being centrist republicans that have tended to vote against the R groupthink in the first place)

        The democratic party is developing a coherent agenda for 2006. The messages are getting out to those who actually care to listen. And a coup is developing in the Dem party, driven by grass-roots efforts to make politicians accountable to the wishes of their party, not their lobbyists.

        • The idea that Dems have no coherent agenda is laughable. . .

          I would agree that the Democrats have a coherent agenda, at least internally, if you study their platform.

          However, I would also agree that the Democrats have not run on a coherent agenda as a national party for quite a few years. Stupid or smart in its content, the Republicans have run on a coherent agenda the last several years, though I would observe that this seems to be decohering quite nicely lately. The Democrats are facing up to the rea

        • Bush is not nor will ever be a coalition builder.

          There are many things Bush isn't (a coalition builder, a leader, etc), but one sure thing he is: a politician. One thing that will help us is to stop electing politicians, and start electing leaders. Easier said than done, though.
        • Asserting Lieberman or Hillary are centrist is laughable; they're Right.

          Thank you for highlighting that one of the problems with the progressive agenda is that they have no idea where the center is.

          • The "centrist" Democrats are members of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) [irc-online.org], who have received funding [sourcewatch.org] from the same organizations that have funded the rightward swing of the GOP [ppionline.org].

            Note on the last link, it's from a DLC affiliate site and obviously written by somebody who doesn't know who underwrites his paychecks.

            As for "one of the problems with the progressive agenda is that they have no idea where the center is"... let's see. Based on polls for the American people and public statements of DLCers:

          • Thank you for highlighting that one of the problems with the progressive agenda is that they have no idea where the center is.

            This is what ALWAYS happens. After Clinton, America took a rightward swing, and Republicans took over everything. Republicans kept running to the right (neocon, anyone), went too far, and the country is now ready to come back to the left. What is the left doing? Running as fast as they can to the left... vacating the middle, yet again. All of these slashdot liberals who believe Hi
      • Independents generally don't troll Democratic.

        And this is why I love the American two party system - you're either with us or against us; one of the good guys or one of the bad guys. It makes sense though - because everything in life is clearly black or white.

      • If the Democratic party would propose and deliver a coherent, workable agenda, instead of attempting to cripple our government through obstructionism and presenting themselves simply as the "we're not Bush" party, I'm sure there are a lot of Republican moderates like myself that would switch.

        It's interesting to note: Clinton got a blow job, and the republicans of the time wasted how much in resources impeaching him for lying under oath about a blow job?

        Our current president has a list of illegal acts and
        • [Regardless; Think for yourself. Don't register as any party, register independant. Read about the issues, form your own opinions and vote with your head, not with your emotions.]

          Couldn't you ignore this part [Don't register as any party, register independant] of your advice and it not make any difference?

          all the best,

          drew
          (da idea man)
        • Why would you register a party affiliation in first place? To make it easier for them to catch you if some fascist rises to power and outlaws all other parties (or at least the one you registered for)?
          • Why would you register a party affiliation in first place?

            (1) To vote in normal (i.e. closed) primaries, and therefore help select the party's candidates.

            (2) To have an influence on the party's positions as they're formed, and not only after they're finished and presented to the electorate as a candidate's platform.

            (3) To register your general political preference. Whether 60% or 30% of voters are registered Democrats makes a difference in the national debate.

            It takes a lot more than winning elections to k
            • You register to a political party to surrender your right to an anonymous vote, you register to a political party to play at politics and cheerlead rather than elect a political representative of the people, you register to a political party to achieve a partisan government that only represents a part of the population and you register to a political party so the lobbyists can adjust their fiscal "er" contributions to ensure no matter who you vote for, they will stay in power. Vote for whom ever can bring t
      • What you're telling us that you'd be happy to vote for Democrats who are slightly less flamboyant about espousing right-wing beliefs publically exposed as insanity than the Republicans you're now embarrassed to be associated with, but that you don't want anything fundamentally changed.

        I think you've got exactly the Republicans you deserve representing you.

      • I think this really shows what's wrong with the US system of government, though - it's nearly impossible to form coalitions across party lines, the two parties try to lock everyone else out, and you have a duopoly on power. This is helped by people such as yourself, who run away from anything that is not centrist, especially if it's leftist.

        It's getting so ridiculous that I wish you guys would change the system to a pralimentary model with a Prime Minister instead of a President. The system seems to be unab
        • Have you guys ever had a Libertarian, Communist, or Green Party member in Congress?

          Green, no, Libertarian kinda, and Communist... only if you count Ted Kennedy.. HEYO! More seriously, Libertarians have run as Republican/Democrat and won Congress seats.. but as far as I know, no Libertarian has ever run as a Libertarian and won a seat in Congress. The US system that forces only two parties to represent the vast range of political opinions and beliefs is killing you through mediocrity and homoginization.
      • [quote]"you can vote for people and hopefully get them into all sort of positions that will give his administration a tough time"

        Independents generally don't troll Democratic.[/quote]

        Um, yeah, I am very much a democratic shill because I hate Bush and his administration.

        Even though I speak against Ed Rendell (democrat):
        http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=191296&cid=157 24120 [slashdot.org]

        And I have the misfortune to live under one of the most corrupt mayors right now (John Street, Democrat) and witnessed in discussed
        • Modern Republicans are no different than Mao, Stalin, Hitler, any dictator.

          If you oppose their agenda, you are an enemy of the state.

          Though I admit I'd most like to see Jesse Ventura in the White House. He rocked as a Governor and is free from all that political party (the poison of politics) crap.


          Yeah, but he was a pussy and let people get to him.
      • I won't consider registering Democratic or voting for most Democrats. If the Democratic party would propose and deliver a coherent, workable agenda, instead of attempting to cripple our government through obstructionism and presenting themselves simply as the "we're not Bush" party

        THAT's fucking hilarious.

        Crippling the government through obstructionism and presenting themselves as the "We're not Bush" party IS THEIR FUCKING JOB! That's why they are called the OPPOSITION PARTY!

        Gingrich shut down the gover
    • Political "strategists" discover technology! Whoever would have thought it!!

      Seriously, though, will this affect the future election thefts? Will this affect the reality that the Supreme Court acted unconstitutionally when it decided the 2000 election, when clearly the US Constitution states in such a circumstance it is decided by congress? Will this affect the reality that the US Congress both abdicated all responsibility and acted unlawfully by acting unconstitutionally when givin Bush warmaking abili

      • Ahem, excuse me, but have you forgotten? This is /., and on /., you're supposed to act like too much of a snot-nosed elitist to actually *admit* that you have a MySpace page.

        Have a good day.

        Sincerely,
        The /. Thought Police
  • by KDR_11k (778916) on Saturday July 22, 2006 @07:34AM (#15762514)
    You know, there's nothing more pointless than using a complicated and large file type for something that could have been expressed perfectly well in text. Text can be read as fast or slow as you like, you can skip text passages without having to search for a sentence to start, you can search it, you can quote it easily and you can reread parts you want to read again much faster than having to skip to a point in a sound file.

    But then again pointless seems to describe many endeavours undertaken by politicians.
    • But since the president doesn't write his own speachs it would have even lessing meaning then it does when he presents it to people. It would be 'here is a statement I endorse' type stuff, and you couldn't hold him to it like we try to do when he gives a speech.
    • How dare you! Don't you know that you would discriminate against the literally challenged?

      (read: Certain politicians would consider themselves at a serious disadvantage if they could only reach literate people)
    • But writing text is so Web 1.0. Unless of course you put in some ajax to do something like define words when you right click on them...

      Of course by the time 2008 comes around, these fads will all be over, by then we will have brand new pointless fads to buy into!

    • I put a lot of stock in the fact that some politicians can talk, and express their ideas, instead of just releasing press kits.

      Listen to bush some time, and then read his press kits. While he's trying desperately to repeat what's in the press kits (until he goes 'off script' and makes a fool of himself), other officials have a lot more elegance and charisma. Listen to Barack OBama speak - that man has passion, intensity, and intelligence. That's the sort of guy I want out in the world, trying to improve
    • When you elect someone you elect a person, not a machine that will robotically implement ideas. So people often vote based on personality and character, not just ideas that can be expressed in long written passages. Personality and character come through much more clearly when you can hear someone speak, and watch their face. Tone of voice, gesture, how they look at their audience, facial expression and how it correlates with what's being said -- all these things give the listener unconscious insight int
    • Yeah. I mean, I love reading while I'm driving, riding my bike, painting my house, mowing my lawn, and otherwise using my eyes and hands in other activities. I mean it's not like there'd be a point to a way to actually get useful content while doing those things and still doing them safely.

      It'd be entirely pointless to be able to listen to something other than music in those 2-3 hours a day that people spend on the road, in the gym and otherwise engaged in activities that preclude staring at a piece of pape
  • 2008 (Score:3, Funny)

    by conn3x (989931) on Saturday July 22, 2006 @07:36AM (#15762516) Homepage
    Best thing about 2008 is Bush --;
  • by macadamia_harold (947445) on Saturday July 22, 2006 @07:46AM (#15762529) Homepage
    The LA Times predicts that the 2008 election will feature the rise of Podcasting Politicians, as strategists from both parties try to ride the latest trends to secure a victory in 2008.

    And as we've all seen, the latest trend in internets technology is tubes. That's right, not a big truck, but tubes.
  • by monarda7216 (972950) on Saturday July 22, 2006 @08:07AM (#15762555) Homepage
    There is a site launched recently targeted towards Politicians of any faction to use as a resource for NetRoots Campaigning. It is not surprising really to consider the web as the next frontier for vote gathering. NetRootCampaigning.com does a great job of explaining why online campaigning will play such a pivotal role in upcoming elections, through the use of blogs, pod casts and audio distribution of speeches. The idea that you can get to know the candidates better makes sense, and the web is a great forum for accomplishing this. Each candidate that creates a strong web presence should be commended, we may for once be able to see that it is they are all about.
  • Why podcast? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by aersixb9 (267695)
    There's no reason for a serious politician to podcast. The votings been rigged for a long time, and it's common knowledge that politicians are in it for the money that they get from businesses in the form of contributions and bribes to pass laws that give the business paying the politician a financial advantage in the short or long term, usually at the detriment to everybody else.

    If you listen to the speeches, the politicans just repeat the same pointless nothings, without any connection to serious and most
    • Re:Why podcast? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ScentCone (795499)
      The entire notion of a ballot, with a very limited number of people to choose from, was created by nearly ancient corrupt, cheating polititians, who after winning the cheating contest that we call elections, made new laws to ensure that they and their team could stay in office and accept large quantities of money in the form of bribes.

      So... you'd rather we didn't have some way of narrowing down national elections, and insteady just had a giant free-for-all where the guy with the most votes wins, but is e
      • They're not individuals, they're a group. The dems and reps are the ruling party, and they print the ballots. Bribes go directly to them. And the only proof I have of this, besides the common knowledge of corrupt politics, is my personal experiences interrogating politicians via torture. They are very bad people, I swear, although I could be lying. There is little common knowledge of the censorship that they impose upon the media via the laws that their party predecessors passed, and the people who appear o
      • Some countries have a similar system. In those countries, you often have about 5 or as many as 10 candidates. Don't think that just because "anyone" could run for an office "anyone" would. Running for an office tends to be a financially challenging untertaking.

        In such countries, it is usually solved in such a way that, if no candidate gets at least 50% of the votes, the leading two candidates are pitted against each other for a second voting.
        • Of course many other countries implemented a system where more than one person is elected from the votes so a 40% voter group gets 40% representation instead of 100% or 0%.
    • Baraka Obama has a great pdocast. The best thing about it is that it is not a lot of double talk or political speeches. It is just Sen. Obama talking about issues of the day. He sounds very genuine and although I don't always agree with him, his positions are well thought out. It is refreshing to hear an intelligent senator. http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/ [senate.gov]
    • Most other nations have private member based national political parties, whose members directly or indirectly, write and approve an enforceable political platform that gives political unity to the party.

      People unfamiliar with the U.S. may be unaware the U.S. does not have national political parties, we only have national committees. The DNC and RNC collect money at the national level. Besides providing the convenience of one-stop shopping for donors, I assume that the DNC/RNC can provide a significant am

    • So what you're saying is that you're waiting for a politician to start handing out free tinfoil hats in their campaigning?
  • by Anonymous Coward
    The current Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel has already a podcast.

    The first podcast (obviously in german): http://a4.g.akamai.net/7/4/12313/v0001/medien.www. bundesregierung.de/podcast/Die_Kanzlerin_direkt_01 .m4v [akamai.net]

    All podcasts of Angela:
    http://www.bundeskanzlerin.de/Webs/BK/DE/Aktuelles /VideoPodcast/video-podcast.html [bundeskanzlerin.de]

    What do you think about it?
  • by LaughingCoder (914424) on Saturday July 22, 2006 @08:40AM (#15762602)
    is going to willingly download political podcasts which are basically campaign ads, other than someone who is already fanatically committed to the particular candidate. Seriously, I simply can't imagine going to all that trouble to hear a campaign ad. Now I suppose if I have autofeeds set up and they find a way to jam their infomercials into my PodPlayer, I might accidentally hear one or two, but frankly, to me that would be like audio spam, and I would hold that against the candidate -- it would certainly not convince me to vote for him/her.

    I'm sure there will be a large number of people listening to podcasts of their favorite politicians, but I am equally sure it will have no bearing on the outcome of the election.
    • I'm sure there will be a large number of people listening to podcasts of their favorite politicians, but I am equally sure it will have no bearing on the outcome of the election.

      Let's say I'm supportng Joe Smith in the 2008 election, and my friend hasn't made up his mind between Joe Smith and Sally Jones. I listen to Joe's podcast for a minute every day becasue I'm interested. Since it's so up to date, he uses it to explain/rebuff/discuss/declare current issuse, be they on policy, personal life and decisi
    • by zzen (190880)
      I'm in the podcasting demographics sweetspot and I still do vote. And when I vote, I care. I try to soak up as much info about which politician might be worth my vote as possible. I do have a preferred party, but give the other candidate always a chance. Podcasting sounds like an interesting alternative to TV duels (which sometimes skew thing out of perspective).
    • I think you are right for the most part. However, podcasts give a better media voice to the person making them, so the discussion can rise above the five word sound bite. I happen to listen to Barack Obama, he averages a couple recordings per month. His recordings are fairly high quality from a vocal perspective (pretty good equipment and setup) isn't high polish, doesn't have goofy intro or background music, doesn't sound like a campaign ad or anything like that. I think he started his podcast over a y
  • by pieterh (196118) on Saturday July 22, 2006 @08:44AM (#15762612) Homepage
    Yes, the Democrats have realised, just as Rheinhold predicted all those years ago, that lots of people will have mobile phones in 2008!

    It's stunning, and I expect the use of mobile phones will dramatically change the future of elections! For example, to raise money, people won't call fixed lines any more, but - get this! - call donors on their mobile phone!!

    The opportunities are limitless... you could actually send people text messages to remind them to vote. You could... like... get them to download your ads, if you called them something cool like "podcasts"...

    This kind of amazing insight is why the Democrats will definitely win the next elections, unless of course the Republicans simply start a new war, deport some gay abortion doctors to Guantanamo Bay for immigration violations, and install yet more unverifiable voting machines in all the swing states.

    Democrats, please! If you want to win in 2008, listen to your young, radical wing. Impeach Bush. Reform Congress, starting by kicking out the corrupt Democrat congressmen who have sold out their constituents. Get people tuned into the real problems in the country... the failed war on drugs, the corruption of the ruling elite, the systematic theft of the nation's wealth by the military-industrial complex, the acts of aggression on foreign states, the institution of a spy state, the use of torture on people held without trial or representation.

    Get a million people into the streets, and do this using text messages, of course, like people's revolutions have done all over the world for the last ten years. Get organised using wikis, email lists, and real grass roots movements. Forget the hype, and please, please, please don't read any more Rheinhold.

    But, since you Democrat leaders seem to be part of the same machine that elected Bush, I guess I'm spitting into the wind by saying this.

    • As much as I'd want to see Bush impeached, overhaul the legislative and executive branch to increase transparency and accountability, introduce a sensible drug policy of legalization and regulation, reverse the unprecedented growth of surveillance and 'counter-terrorism' measures and reduce the insane spending on military research, I've come to the conclusion that people are inherently -though many not practically- afraid of change.

      In fact conservatives have made a political dynasty out of this very prin
      • What makes you think everyone agrees with your drug policies? Here's an idea: the politicians don't hear a lot of criticism about the War on Drugs, because people actually agree with it.

        In California, the marijuana initiative passed with 56% of the vote.

        Where I live (Colorado), we had a marijuana initiative in Denver last year (IIRC).. Denver is by far the largest city in Colorado, and usually votes democrat.. the rest of the state votes republican.. so Colorado is R.

        In Denver, the initiative passed 53%-46%
        • Perhaps more people would come out and vote for more liberal drug laws through local ballot initiatives if they actually thought that the new laws would actually be implemented?

          As it currently stands, municipalities (like Denver) or entire states (like California) can vote to liberalize their marijuana laws, and it doesn't make a bit of difference, because the feds just storm in and override the local laws, arresting grandmothers with glaucoma, and AIDS/cancer patients who use medical marijuana.

          Funny how th
          • federal laws have always overridden state laws.. for the same reason state laws override local laws. This isn't something that's being applied to just marijuana.. it has happened again and again in history.. so not only should those trying to pass marijuana initiatives be unsurprised when the federal (or state, in Denver's case) law is enforced, they should also expect it to happen.

            Enforcement of federal law does not seem to be a discouraging factor.. after all, people are willing to come out and vote for m
    • The thing is that all these problems are systematic and can be found in every other "first-world" capitalist nation. They existed in the US at the time of WWI, at the Vietnam War, and through today. As long as people put hope in the system that creates these flaws, that necessitates a ruling elite who are socially and, more importantly, economically above the rest of a country, none of these problems are going to disappear. It does not fucking matter whether the Republicans, the Democrats, or an independ
    • Get people tuned into the real problems in the country...

      I think it's funny to hear a complaint like that from someone with this line in their .sig:

      Gerrymandering has turned Congress into a cartel of power.

      It amazes me when I hear people complaining about Gerrymandering as being the source of a problem, when it is nothing but a symptom of several problems.

      The source of the problems of Congress has largely to do with the fixed number of Representatives we now have, as set by a law in 1911 when the country
  • by ScentCone (795499) on Saturday July 22, 2006 @08:55AM (#15762634)
    where one person sees something really interesting and it gets passed on and on

    That closed-loop, forward-to-your-friends behavior is already an echo chamber ringing loudly with nonsensical, tin-foil lined inanities (across the idealogical spectrum) and apocryphal pablum. We already see enough "I don't usually forward this sort of thing, but this is really spooky!" crap from people that we still pretend are our friends.

    Political-camp-driven psuedo-factoid-chain-letter type behavior is going to continue to amplify the already tunnel-vision madness that typifies the current election cycle for people in both parties. None of it persuades anyone to change their mind about anything because the simple act of receiving it in your inbox subjects it to already well-armored biases (well founded or otherwise) that result in the same instantly applied judgement that's used to throw out V1@gr4 spam. This sort of stuff may help a candidate keep her already-loyal base stoked up, but is there any question about those votes anyway?
  • We really got socked last time because the religious right will all go out and vote, and for some reason, as passionately as our generation feels about things, not enough of us made our voice heard at the final hour. Please, please put down the iPod for 2 seconds and go out and vote this time!
    • I didn't vote in '04, and not because I was busy with an iPod.

      And no, I didn't boycott the election because Kerry and Bush were both Skull and Bones members, thus proving the Illumanti conspiracy true once and for all (although I did find it odd).

      I didn't vote because I felt both men were bad for America.

      This isn't Pepsi v. Coke, Microsoft v. Apple; this is the future of the free world at stake! I don't buy the "lesser of two evils" argument for one second.
      • by _xeno_ (155264) on Saturday July 22, 2006 @12:28PM (#15763197) Homepage Journal

        I agree, both Kerry and Bush were bad for America. Which is why, when I voted, I didn't vote for either of them, I voted for a third party.

        Which got something like a fraction of a percent of the total vote, but still... If enough people who disagree with both main-party canidates vote for third parties, eventually it might have a very small difference.

        It beats not saying anything.

        • From Teddy Rosevelt from Ross Perot the 3rd parties have helped define America in times of great need.

          Sadly, I wasn't keen on any of the 3rd parties in '04 either.

          Is Thomas Jefferson available for '08? He'd get my vote.
        • Indeed. Vote 3rd Party, ANY 3rd party... but by moving to someplace together and being even moderately active will help even more... voting isn't just enough, sadly.

          Those supporting Libertarians (and other assorted liberty-centric parties such as the Constitution party) should consider the
          Free State Project [freestateproject.org], and move to New Hampshire. We're already having an effect here.

          The religious zealots can move to South Carolina [christianexodus.org] Similarly, the Greens could move to Oregon [pacificgreens.org]... Florida can remain a neutral zone, where
          • My plan for peace:
            1. Buy home within walking distance to beach
            2. Sell my car, buy cases of Pepsi and Pall Mall cigs
            3. Build the tallest fence I can around my cement-based bunker home
            4. Obtain unloaded shotgun, march to and from beach as often as possible

            Sure, some like-minded neighbors might make things more "friendly", but that's not a "deal breaker" IMO.
  • by dud83 (815304)
    Congress is absolutely baffled as the winner of the 2009 Presidential Elections turned out to be a beefed up version of A.L.I.C.E, deployed as a marketing scheme for Intel to show off their new Octal Core processor!
  • that I read the headline as "Purchasing Politicians"?
  • So the L.A. Times thinks podcasting could turn the tide in the 2008 U.S. presidential election? Bwahahahaha... let's run the numbers:

    One of the most optimistic predictions of a podcast audience comes Forrester Research Group, who says that [imediaconnection.com] 12 million people will regularly listen to podcasts by 2010. So let's roll that number back a bit and generously say that the 2008 podcasting audience is 10 million. Of that, maybe one-tenth will be tuned into anything political; the rest will be listening to crap l [podshow.com]
    • You can say it was overrated, but look how how online web sites actually has influenced elections recently. You do remember the infamous Rathergate scandal, where an attempt to denigrate President Bush during the 2004 election campaign got stopped because people on the Internet in a matter of hours showed that the evidence was a fraud? That scandal showed that the mass media better start being on their toes because quick analysis by online sites could have devestating results.

      With the price of portable musi
      • On that we totally agree... the 'net is at its best when it serves as a bullshit-detection device. One really can't put crap out there into the universe anymore and not expect to be called on it.

        My fear about political podcasting is that it will just be the same crap served up in a different dish.

        When I finally see a politician who regularly updates his/her own blog, with his/her own fingers... now that will something remarkable.
  • by 2008, so will it really matter? :p
  • After the compassionate conservative we now get the podcasting politicians. What's the next political alliteration spin? The docile democrat? The loony liberal? The presentable president?

    But huzzah, we have a new toy to make politicians look "modern" and "in touch with current technology". I'd love to hold an interview with them about a few "modern" issues like net neutrality, copyright law and DRM and find out how much they really know about the things they make laws about.

    Considering the laws we get, my b
  • by mariox19 (632969) on Saturday July 22, 2006 @12:11PM (#15763133)

    This podcasting politicians thing makes me think that if Congress allows ISP's to play favorites with what files get priority treatment, you can bet your last US dollar that there will be a law mandating that priority treatment be given to all use of the Internet by politicians spouting campaign propaganda, at no additional cost to the politicians. While we wait for Google to load, Senator so-and-so's daily video podcast will come flying onto our desktops.

  • Wow! All 2 of the parties?! What are we serving tonight... chicken, or chicken?
  • There is no way in hell I am going to listen to some politician bloviating for a half hour on my MP3 player when I could be using my time more productively to listen to something more enjoyable.

    I am personally at wits end with podcasts. I have always been an avid talk show listener, tuning in to both commercial and public radio. I was excited when 'podcasting' started, first as streaming audio, and then as downloadable mp3s. I still enjoy listening to professionals bloviating on podcasts. What I dislike
  • Won't these clog up the tubes? I need my internets delivered promptly.
  • Yay! Election '08 will include podcasts... of course the podcasts will be of politicians trying very hard not to take a firm stand on controversial issues, making vauge and completly meaningless promises ("I promise to help every American achieve the 'American Dream'"... "I promise to protect America"), and lots of issueless propoganda human interest videos designed to make a candidate more "human" and "likeable" ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDhv15EKJNo&search = al%20gore%20unseen [youtube.com] ).

    So called "Democr
  • All you need to do is go on cnn and utter two words: DMCA repeal.

    instant lockin of the entire techie vote.
  • I sure as hell wouldnt vote for someone who texted me with a "vote for me" sms. And I like how podcasting is the politician's attempt to use the "latest" technology. Lets just hope they dont fill the tubes with all their huge amounts of information. Huge amounts of information.
  • Democratic party supporters came around trying to get us to sign up to vote my freshman year. When I got to the form field that said phone number I said "Well we haven't set up our dorm phone yet." They said, "That's fine, just put down your cell phone." Not thinking, I just wrote it down and handed it to them. About a minute later, I thought better of it and asked them if I could get my form back, because I didn't really want to be called on my cell phone. They said "Sure, just cross it out." I scrib
  • challengeing incumbent Herb Kohl in the Democratic Primary. While i have yet to produce a podcast, you can grab this interview from Wisconsin Public Radio, recorded yesterday. [wpr.org]

    First half hour is Milwaukee Journal/Sentinal's Washington correspondent Craig Gilbert discussing the Senate race. Then, I'm on for the 2nd 1/2 hr.

    Topics include cellphone location tracking, and the DOPA (Deleting Online Predators act), passed in the house last week, which would require schools and libraries to filter chatrooms andso

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing." -- Sledge Hammer

Working...