Re: [videoblogging] Re: John Edwards to Run for President (announcement on YouTube)
A very interesting observation of the MSM ignoring videoblogging's role in the anouncemenet: http://newteevee.com/2006/12/28/msm-ignores-edwards-youtube-debut/ "...Some of the MSM accounts do reference the fact that EdwardsÂ’ official campaign Web site went live briefly Wednesday by mistake3, a story reported by the Associated Press. But a quick scan of reports from the Wall Street Journal4 (via the AP), the New York Times5, Reuters6 and the Washington Post7 make no mention of the YouTube clip." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: John Edwards to Run for President (announcement on YouTube)
Well, I hadn't been out to offend you and I take it that you weren't out to offend me, so I'd hope we could just shrug and move on. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime sull wrote: >much blood, much foul... actually. > >On 12/28/06, J. Rhett Aultman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Oh. Well, in that case, no blood, no foul. ;) >> >> >>-- >>Rhett. >>http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime >> >> >> >>>my post was not directed at you nor a direct response to anything you >>> >>> >>had >> >> >>>said. >>>sorry for the confusion there. >>>i injected it here in this thread as a general sentiment towards how >>>fucked >>>up and backwards the system is. >>> >>>On 12/28/06, J. Rhett Aultman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >>> >>wrote: >> >> Imagine all the people living life in peace? I won't profess to know what elections would look like under your hypothetical model. I'm not concerned with the hypothetical. Nor does any of this have anything to do with my original statement, which is that I perceive John Edwards as being cannon fodder in the upcoming >>election. >> >> I wish him well. I like the guy. I just think that, should he survive the primaries, he won't survive the shooting gallery waiting for him. I also do believe that Internet-based media and online small-donation funding will play a role in the upcoming election. I just happen to not believe that the grassroots is sufficient today to overcome the kind of dialog control that America's right executes. Furthermore, I'm in Internet video because it's an alternative to film school that I can afford (in terms of both time and money). If and when I make something that voices the previously unvoiced, that's good, and I am grateful for the opportunity, but I'm not interested in revolutions. >>I'm >> >> not interested in what "ought to be". My interests are in what lies before us right now and how to deal with it. I'm also not interested in being told what I should personally be doing. I'm glad you're out there living and speaking your truth, but the truth I'm interested in is the immediate and quantifiable. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime >Imagine if Campaigning+MSMcoverage+NetworkTV were disallowed? > > [...] >The system and foundation must change for elections at some point > > in >the >next 50 years. Not enough attention is on the proper type of reforms >needed. That should be one of the next revolutions that YOU should be >getting involved with. > >In the mean time, let's hope that the supplemental sources of >communication >that we have today such as net video, audio, blogging and online >crowdfunding systems help make at least a bit of difference in 2008. > >sull > > >>> >>>-- >>>Sull >>>http://vlogdir.com (a project) >>>http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) >>>http://interdigitate.com (otherly) >>> >>> >>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Yahoo! Groups Links >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > >
Re: [videoblogging] Re: John Edwards to Run for President (announcement on YouTube)
much blood, much foul... actually. On 12/28/06, J. Rhett Aultman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Oh. Well, in that case, no blood, no foul. ;) > > > -- > Rhett. > http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime > > > my post was not directed at you nor a direct response to anything you > had > > said. > > sorry for the confusion there. > > i injected it here in this thread as a general sentiment towards how > > fucked > > up and backwards the system is. > > > > On 12/28/06, J. Rhett Aultman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> > >> Imagine all the people living life in peace? > >> > >> I won't profess to know what elections would look like under your > >> hypothetical model. I'm not concerned with the hypothetical. Nor does > >> any of this have anything to do with my original statement, which is > >> that > >> I perceive John Edwards as being cannon fodder in the upcoming > election. > >> I wish him well. I like the guy. I just think that, should he survive > >> the primaries, he won't survive the shooting gallery waiting for him. > >> > >> I also do believe that Internet-based media and online small-donation > >> funding will play a role in the upcoming election. I just happen to not > >> believe that the grassroots is sufficient today to overcome the kind of > >> dialog control that America's right executes. > >> > >> Furthermore, I'm in Internet video because it's an alternative to film > >> school that I can afford (in terms of both time and money). If and when > >> I > >> make something that voices the previously unvoiced, that's good, and I > >> am > >> grateful for the opportunity, but I'm not interested in revolutions. > I'm > >> not interested in what "ought to be". My interests are in what lies > >> before us right now and how to deal with it. I'm also not interested in > >> being told what I should personally be doing. I'm glad you're out there > >> living and speaking your truth, but the truth I'm interested in is the > >> immediate and quantifiable. > >> > >> -- > >> Rhett. > >> http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime > >> > >> > Imagine if Campaigning+MSMcoverage+NetworkTV were disallowed? > >> [...] > >> > The system and foundation must change for elections at some point > >> in > >> > the > >> > next 50 years. Not enough attention is on the proper type of reforms > >> > needed. That should be one of the next revolutions that YOU should be > >> > getting involved with. > >> > > >> > In the mean time, let's hope that the supplemental sources of > >> > communication > >> > that we have today such as net video, audio, blogging and online > >> > crowdfunding systems help make at least a bit of difference in 2008. > >> > > >> > sull > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Sull > > http://vlogdir.com (a project) > > http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) > > http://interdigitate.com (otherly) > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > -- Sull http://vlogdir.com (a project) http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) http://interdigitate.com (otherly) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: John Edwards to Run for President (announcement on YouTube)
El Destiny wrote: >Edwards gives a great stump speech. Don't write him >off if you haven't seen him speak. > >Also, the new primary schedule is said to favor >Edwards -- he's strong in Nevada, and should do well >in the South (his home territory). > > Taken solely on his merits, I like Edwards pretty well. I liked him a lot more than I ever liked Kerry. I'm also not questioning his ability to slog through the primaries with a win, even if he's up against someone like Hillary Clinton. >Rove said he'd retired before the 2008 campaign. > > People say a lot of things. Bush said he was keeping Rumsfeld forever, too. If it's not Rove himself, then it's someone who's a whiz with the resources Rove built. The weapons will be the same, even if the wielder is different. >Even then, the Rove-led campaigns only won by 400 >votes in Florida in 2000, and 100,000 in Ohio in 2004. >(And the incumbent is always expected to win >re-election except in times of national crisis.) > > That's true, but the first race was narrowly besting a VP of one of the most popular Presidents who'd been in office during an amazing period of prosperity while the second race was narrowly besting the inheritor of the anti-Iraq voting base, which a mere two years later is the major demographic in America. Rove pulled off narrow wins, but if I barely beat Mike Tyson in a boxing match, I'd still be a hell of a boxer. >The "echo chamber" is powerful - but I think it's >equally effective against new and old candidates. > > Edwards' "newness" wasn't the question here. The media echo chamber works against anyone at any time, provided you can get it revved up and working. In the case of Edwards versus Rich Dullwasp (my default Republican "Joe Schmoe"), Dullwasp has something Edwards doesn't-- Edwards' dirty laundry from 2004. That means, if he's got the Rove-ian echo chamber, he can pick the things that are going to echo. >Also, that "echo chamber" effect didn't help in the >2006 elections. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's power is >weakening; or it doesn't work when there are >legitimate widespread grievances; or maybe online >activism has just grown enough to counter it. > > In my opinion, it's because you can't use the echo chamber to quash a story; merely to direct away from it. A mixture of a Republican-led Congress and the Rove-ian echo chamber kept Plamegate and Abramoff from becoming big stories, because nothing actionable really happened and there was always Iraq to get back to. The Foley scandal was something else entirely, though, and the American love for the spectacle of gay affairs wouldn't let the story get misdirected. I'm with Rove on this one-- the election was the Republicans' to win, and a set of very bright scandals took a beat away from the Republicans and let the Democrats play the anti-corruption card. The name of the game was October Surprise, Shitstorm Edition. >Not necessarily. It's possible to talk about the same >topics to different groups of people for four years >(without revealing any weak spots). And for that >matter, you build up support over the four years. >Would it really be better to have a candidate who >hadn't been on the trail for four years, simply >because this stealthiness robs the opponent of >potential attacks? > > I'm not a political strategist, so I don't have the capacity to answer that question. And I wasn't saying that Edwards had revealed new weak spots. I think that all of his old ones are still there, since you can't change the past, and that just means that the researchers at the Department of Mudslinging get to start early. >The same videos could be uploaded to YouTube. (Most >campaign ads were uploaded to YouTube during >November's campaign.) Maybe in 2008 candidates will >consider videos produced specifically for the web. >(Unless they're afraid this will give too many >specifics on their positions to their opponents.) > > No doubt, somebody will, and I predict right now that it won't make all that much difference. >We've already seen Firedoglake following the Joe >Lieberman campaign. (Or were they just posting video >footage shot by other people?) And the media tends to >forget that the "Macaca" comment was directed at >someone who'd been videotaping Senator Allen's >appearances. > > Right, but the videoblogging community seems to forget that the "Macaca" blunder would have just been a ripple in the blogosphere if it hadn't made it on to traditional media outlets. Likewise, I don't think this works in reverse. The "Macaca heard round the world" was proof that a well-spread political blunder can make it on the evening news and discredit a candidate. Nobody has, to date, shown a cadidate's footage starting on YouTube (or anywhere on the Web) and it becomes a significant feather in his/her cap. There's been an assumption that this works both ways. I remain skeptical, which is to say that I'm waiting to see if this ever happens. -- Rhett. ht
Re: [videoblogging] Re: John Edwards to Run for President (announcement on YouTube)
First post! (Be gentle...) I couldn't resist responding to the Edwards comments But I promise there's some material about videoblogging in here. Edwards gives a great stump speech. Don't write him off if you haven't seen him speak. Also, the new primary schedule is said to favor Edwards -- he's strong in Nevada, and should do well in the South (his home territory). > The fundamental question I have is how he'd > handle another Rove-run campaign. Rove said he'd retired before the 2008 campaign. Even then, the Rove-led campaigns only won by 400 votes in Florida in 2000, and 100,000 in Ohio in 2004. (And the incumbent is always expected to win re-election except in times of national crisis.) > It's a simple fact that anyone facing a Rove-assisted > politician will face an echo chamber. The "echo chamber" is powerful - but I think it's equally effective against new and old candidates. Also, that "echo chamber" effect didn't help in the 2006 elections. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's power is weakening; or it doesn't work when there are legitimate widespread grievances; or maybe online activism has just grown enough to counter it. The key issue in November was said to be Iraq, which could still be a key issue in 2008. I'd love to see some videoblogging from Iraq, or even the Middle East. Even some college kid's summer vacation > four years, giving his enemies plenty of time and opportunity to find all his weak spots. Not necessarily. It's possible to talk about the same topics to different groups of people for four years (without revealing any weak spots). And for that matter, you build up support over the four years. Would it really be better to have a candidate who hadn't been on the trail for four years, simply because this stealthiness robs the opponent of potential attacks? > Imagine if instead every registered voter got an > official campaign DVD The same videos could be uploaded to YouTube. (Most campaign ads were uploaded to YouTube during November's campaign.) Maybe in 2008 candidates will consider videos produced specifically for the web. (Unless they're afraid this will give too many specifics on their positions to their opponents.) But it does seem like there's an opportunity there for videobloggers - especially during the primaries - to pester as many candidates as they can for an interview. (Or do what Hunter S. Thompson did - pick one candidate you like, and follow him everywhere.) We've already seen Firedoglake following the Joe Lieberman campaign. (Or were they just posting video footage shot by other people?) And the media tends to forget that the "Macaca" comment was directed at someone who'd been videotaping Senator Allen's appearances. I think the Mark Foley scandal is just proof that politicians are used to working in the insulated world of D.C., and haven't grasped how many new information outlets there are. That create an opportunity for videobloggers - if they can just come up with a vision for what they want to accomplish. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: John Edwards to Run for President (announcement on YouTube)
Oh. Well, in that case, no blood, no foul. ;) -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime > my post was not directed at you nor a direct response to anything you had > said. > sorry for the confusion there. > i injected it here in this thread as a general sentiment towards how > fucked > up and backwards the system is. > > On 12/28/06, J. Rhett Aultman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Imagine all the people living life in peace? >> >> I won't profess to know what elections would look like under your >> hypothetical model. I'm not concerned with the hypothetical. Nor does >> any of this have anything to do with my original statement, which is >> that >> I perceive John Edwards as being cannon fodder in the upcoming election. >> I wish him well. I like the guy. I just think that, should he survive >> the primaries, he won't survive the shooting gallery waiting for him. >> >> I also do believe that Internet-based media and online small-donation >> funding will play a role in the upcoming election. I just happen to not >> believe that the grassroots is sufficient today to overcome the kind of >> dialog control that America's right executes. >> >> Furthermore, I'm in Internet video because it's an alternative to film >> school that I can afford (in terms of both time and money). If and when >> I >> make something that voices the previously unvoiced, that's good, and I >> am >> grateful for the opportunity, but I'm not interested in revolutions. I'm >> not interested in what "ought to be". My interests are in what lies >> before us right now and how to deal with it. I'm also not interested in >> being told what I should personally be doing. I'm glad you're out there >> living and speaking your truth, but the truth I'm interested in is the >> immediate and quantifiable. >> >> -- >> Rhett. >> http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime >> >> > Imagine if Campaigning+MSMcoverage+NetworkTV were disallowed? >> [...] >> > The system and foundation must change for elections at some point >> in >> > the >> > next 50 years. Not enough attention is on the proper type of reforms >> > needed. That should be one of the next revolutions that YOU should be >> > getting involved with. >> > >> > In the mean time, let's hope that the supplemental sources of >> > communication >> > that we have today such as net video, audio, blogging and online >> > crowdfunding systems help make at least a bit of difference in 2008. >> > >> > sull >> >> >> > > > > -- > Sull > http://vlogdir.com (a project) > http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) > http://interdigitate.com (otherly) > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
Re: [videoblogging] Re: John Edwards to Run for President (announcement on YouTube)
my post was not directed at you nor a direct response to anything you had said. sorry for the confusion there. i injected it here in this thread as a general sentiment towards how fucked up and backwards the system is. On 12/28/06, J. Rhett Aultman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Imagine all the people living life in peace? > > I won't profess to know what elections would look like under your > hypothetical model. I'm not concerned with the hypothetical. Nor does > any of this have anything to do with my original statement, which is that > I perceive John Edwards as being cannon fodder in the upcoming election. > I wish him well. I like the guy. I just think that, should he survive > the primaries, he won't survive the shooting gallery waiting for him. > > I also do believe that Internet-based media and online small-donation > funding will play a role in the upcoming election. I just happen to not > believe that the grassroots is sufficient today to overcome the kind of > dialog control that America's right executes. > > Furthermore, I'm in Internet video because it's an alternative to film > school that I can afford (in terms of both time and money). If and when I > make something that voices the previously unvoiced, that's good, and I am > grateful for the opportunity, but I'm not interested in revolutions. I'm > not interested in what "ought to be". My interests are in what lies > before us right now and how to deal with it. I'm also not interested in > being told what I should personally be doing. I'm glad you're out there > living and speaking your truth, but the truth I'm interested in is the > immediate and quantifiable. > > -- > Rhett. > http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime > > > Imagine if Campaigning+MSMcoverage+NetworkTV were disallowed? > [...] > > The system and foundation must change for elections at some point in > > the > > next 50 years. Not enough attention is on the proper type of reforms > > needed. That should be one of the next revolutions that YOU should be > > getting involved with. > > > > In the mean time, let's hope that the supplemental sources of > > communication > > that we have today such as net video, audio, blogging and online > > crowdfunding systems help make at least a bit of difference in 2008. > > > > sull > > > -- Sull http://vlogdir.com (a project) http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) http://interdigitate.com (otherly) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [videoblogging] Re: John Edwards to Run for President (announcement on YouTube)
Hasn't Rove been shown to be a sheep in wolf's clothing in the past few years? > -Original Message- > From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. Rhett Aultman > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 3:30 PM > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [videoblogging] Re: John Edwards to Run for > President (announcement on YouTube) > > Defeatism is the acceptance of defeat without struggle. I > don't advocate that. I have never suggested the towel be > thrown in. What I have suggested is: I don't think John > Edwards is the best pair of shorts to run up the flagpole, > that I believe a more politically viable choice is someone > whose vulerabilities are not yet known, that anyone butting > heads with Rove needs to be ironclad and prepared to outdo > Rove at his own games, and that the grassroots is > over-estimated in Presidential elections. > > I have a mild pessimism so far about the options that are > showing up from the Democrat side, but it's not even 2007 > yet, and actually remain hopeful that the kind of candidate I > view as preferable has simply not stepped forward yet. > > -- > Rhett. > http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime > > > This defeatism is not how the Republicans mobilized their base and > > created the message machine being described. > > > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. > Rhett Aultman > >> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 12:14 > >> To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > >> Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: John Edwards to Run for President > >> (announcement on YouTube) > >> > >> I never said anything about ideological biases in the > media one way > >> or another. The major sources of news are, for the most part, > >> conduits for what they can get. The current series of political > >> strategists for the right are, however, masters of the > echo chamber > >> effect in ways that the political strategists for the left > are not. > >> It's a simple fact that anyone facing a Rove-assisted > politician will > >> face an echo chamber. It's his primary weapon, above > everything else. > >> > >> You are right that it's about taking the offensive. That's why I > >> don't think Edwards can win. His weak points are already known and > >> ripe for the punching, and as much as he wants to > counterpunch, he's > >> not going to be able to aim for soft spots. Should he make > it out of > >> the primaries alive, I don't believe he could survive the first > >> haymaker his opponent delivers, no matter how positive, > accessible, > >> or grassroots he is. > >> > >> -- > >> Rhett. > >> http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime > >> <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime> > >> > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
RE: [videoblogging] Re: John Edwards to Run for President (announcement on YouTube)
Defeatism is the acceptance of defeat without struggle. I don't advocate that. I have never suggested the towel be thrown in. What I have suggested is: I don't think John Edwards is the best pair of shorts to run up the flagpole, that I believe a more politically viable choice is someone whose vulerabilities are not yet known, that anyone butting heads with Rove needs to be ironclad and prepared to outdo Rove at his own games, and that the grassroots is over-estimated in Presidential elections. I have a mild pessimism so far about the options that are showing up from the Democrat side, but it's not even 2007 yet, and actually remain hopeful that the kind of candidate I view as preferable has simply not stepped forward yet. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime > This defeatism is not how the Republicans mobilized their base and > created the message machine being described. > > >> -Original Message- >> From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. Rhett Aultman >> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 12:14 >> To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com >> Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: John Edwards to Run for >> President (announcement on YouTube) >> >> I never said anything about ideological biases in the media >> one way or another. The major sources of news are, for the >> most part, conduits for what they can get. The current series >> of political strategists for the right are, however, masters >> of the echo chamber effect in ways that the political >> strategists for the left are not. It's a simple fact that >> anyone facing a Rove-assisted politician will face an echo >> chamber. It's his primary weapon, above everything else. >> >> You are right that it's about taking the offensive. That's >> why I don't think Edwards can win. His weak points are >> already known and ripe for the punching, and as much as he >> wants to counterpunch, he's not going to be able to aim for >> soft spots. Should he make it out of the primaries alive, I >> don't believe he could survive the first haymaker his >> opponent delivers, no matter how positive, accessible, or >> grassroots he is. >> >> -- >> Rhett. >> http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime >> <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime> >> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
RE: [videoblogging] Re: John Edwards to Run for President (announcement on YouTube)
This defeatism is not how the Republicans mobilized their base and created the message machine being described. > -Original Message- > From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. Rhett Aultman > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 12:14 > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: John Edwards to Run for > President (announcement on YouTube) > > I never said anything about ideological biases in the media > one way or another. The major sources of news are, for the > most part, conduits for what they can get. The current series > of political strategists for the right are, however, masters > of the echo chamber effect in ways that the political > strategists for the left are not. It's a simple fact that > anyone facing a Rove-assisted politician will face an echo > chamber. It's his primary weapon, above everything else. > > You are right that it's about taking the offensive. That's > why I don't think Edwards can win. His weak points are > already known and ripe for the punching, and as much as he > wants to counterpunch, he's not going to be able to aim for > soft spots. Should he make it out of the primaries alive, I > don't believe he could survive the first haymaker his > opponent delivers, no matter how positive, accessible, or > grassroots he is. > > -- > Rhett. > http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime> >
Re: [videoblogging] Re: John Edwards to Run for President (announcement on YouTube)
Hi Sean,thanks for the feedback. Here are some thoughts: Im not a journalist, Im a human being and I pick and choose to focus on what I want. And even though I will probably vote for him, I would be glad to help other candidates too; I'm in to offering what I know to help level the playing field in politics as the first objective. Video and Web 2.0 politics gives people the chance to lift or drop politicians based on what they see instead of what we hear via interpretation. The more video we get, the more we can decipher the facts and form an opinion. I hope to help establish the back-end systems to allow people to see as much as they can so they can make their own decisions. I also like the idea of enabling the politicians to take the media into their own hands. Even in my own field, if one of my "competitors" in videoblogging reaches out with questions, I'll speak up and give my best answers and offer sincere help. I think Ive demonstrated that here even by offering up what others would my industry secrets. Thats just me, I dont see it as competition and believe a rising tide lifts all boats. Here are some specific thoughts on where I stand with the 2008 Elections. http://www.dembot.com/010661.html Drew On Dec 28, 2006, at 1:27 PM, sean_m_garrett wrote: > > > Therefore, is Rocketboom going to be working with the Edwards campaign > for the long-haul? (Which would make it very easy for their viewers > to filter the opinions on the show. It would also help prevent snarky > comments from bloggers like me who intuitively assume that > journalistic interactions with a presidential candidate are striving > for objectivity). > > Or is Rocketboom going to provide equal access and their production > support to any presidential candidate who asks? > > Knowing the above answers would provide substantial context to any > viewer who may happen upon the Rocketboom interview with Edwards > today. > > With Great Respect, > Sean Garrett > > The 463: Inside Tech Policy > http://463.blogs.com > > P.S.: I joined this list not to talk about politics (or religion), > but to 1) learn from all of you as I create my own vlog and 2) to > discuss the implications of public policy that might impact the > fortunes of online video. I look forward to it. > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Today Joanne, Chuck and I are out in New Orleans. > > > > We just filmed John Edwards' first announcement that he is running > > for president. > > > > I just uploaded the video to John Edwards' YouTube account. > > > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=1etlZaf6zUw";>http://youtube.com/ > > watch?v=1etlZaf6zUw > > > > (BTW, it may look like a photo op, but Edwards has been working out > > here all day and has been providing major support since last year > > when Katrina hit). > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: John Edwards to Run for President (announcement on YouTube)
Imagine all the people living life in peace? I won't profess to know what elections would look like under your hypothetical model. I'm not concerned with the hypothetical. Nor does any of this have anything to do with my original statement, which is that I perceive John Edwards as being cannon fodder in the upcoming election. I wish him well. I like the guy. I just think that, should he survive the primaries, he won't survive the shooting gallery waiting for him. I also do believe that Internet-based media and online small-donation funding will play a role in the upcoming election. I just happen to not believe that the grassroots is sufficient today to overcome the kind of dialog control that America's right executes. Furthermore, I'm in Internet video because it's an alternative to film school that I can afford (in terms of both time and money). If and when I make something that voices the previously unvoiced, that's good, and I am grateful for the opportunity, but I'm not interested in revolutions. I'm not interested in what "ought to be". My interests are in what lies before us right now and how to deal with it. I'm also not interested in being told what I should personally be doing. I'm glad you're out there living and speaking your truth, but the truth I'm interested in is the immediate and quantifiable. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime > Imagine if Campaigning+MSMcoverage+NetworkTV were disallowed? [...] > The system and foundation must change for elections at some point in > the > next 50 years. Not enough attention is on the proper type of reforms > needed. That should be one of the next revolutions that YOU should be > getting involved with. > > In the mean time, let's hope that the supplemental sources of > communication > that we have today such as net video, audio, blogging and online > crowdfunding systems help make at least a bit of difference in 2008. > > sull
Re: [videoblogging] Re: John Edwards to Run for President (announcement on YouTube)
Imagine if Campaigning+MSMcoverage+NetworkTV were disallowed? Imagine if instead every registered voter got an official campaign DVD from each candidate along with Internet Resources and Calendar for when they will be in your area for face time? Imagine if it was about in depth educating of important issues and learning about the candidate, DIRECTLY? Imagine if all the propaganda noise and the games were diluted and choosing your countries leaders was a mature and serious effort to truly convince and earn trust from the masses who can decide to put you in office? The system and foundation must change for elections at some point in the next 50 years. Not enough attention is on the proper type of reforms needed. That should be one of the next revolutions that YOU should be getting involved with. In the mean time, let's hope that the supplemental sources of communication that we have today such as net video, audio, blogging and online crowdfunding systems help make at least a bit of difference in 2008. sull On 12/28/06, J. Rhett Aultman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I never said anything about ideological biases in the media one way or > another. The major sources of news are, for the most part, conduits for > what they can get. The current series of political strategists for the > right are, however, masters of the echo chamber effect in ways that the > political strategists for the left are not. It's a simple fact that > anyone facing a Rove-assisted politician will face an echo chamber. It's > his primary weapon, above everything else. > > You are right that it's about taking the offensive. That's why I don't > think Edwards can win. His weak points are already known and ripe for the > punching, and as much as he wants to counterpunch, he's not going to be > able to aim for soft spots. Should he make it out of the primaries alive, > I don't believe he could survive the first haymaker his opponent delivers, > no matter how positive, accessible, or grassroots he is. > > > -- > Rhett. > http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime > > > Kerry killed myself with his own words, and are you saying > > the "media" is conservitive? One station is conservitive, people > > didn't believe in Kerry, he offered no clear plan, none, just talk, > > people need to feel related to, that is what made Clinton popular, > > even though I did not like him, he made people feel like they > > mattered.and that does matter..you take the offesive, not the > > defensive, and democratics are always on the defensive. > > > > Heath > > http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com , > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >> I'm curious as to how you believe that these things will pull out a > > win > >> against an opponent whose primary weapon is the echo chamber, > > guaranteeing > >> that, for every assertion you make, there will be an army of people > > on > >> every media outlet imaginable all saying the exact same > > contradiction to > >> whatever Edwards/Clinton/Whoever says. Kerry often dug his own > > grave in > >> 2004, but it's also very true that he was smothered out in the > > media-- > >> every one of his merits became sidelined, niggled, and confused; > > every one > >> of his blunders instantly became a gaping flaw (think about > > the "flip > >> flopper" label he earned). > >> > >> The grassroots is great for taking Congress, but not a Presidency. > > I > >> still remember in 2004 as I marched in the streets for Kerry (even > > though > >> I didn't really like him) and found that our assembled grassroots > > power > >> paled in comparison to the regimented and well-funded power the > > Bush 2004 > >> campaign had. We had our signs, chants, hope, and energy. They > > had their > >> signs, chants, hope, and energy...and several "party wagon" > > vehicles...and > >> a DJ...and threw major parties that got young people registered and > > hyped > >> up for Bush...and...and... > >> > >> My sincere belief is that 2008 will be a battle of insiders. > > Anyone who > >> is overly grassroots is going to find themself in a fourth and long. > >> > >> -- > >> Rhett. > >> http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime > >> > >> > By talking plain and simple, by fighting back when he's right, by > >> > offering clear solutions to issues, by not gettign side tracked, > > by > >> > addressing issues, by being human, by not just telling us what is > >> > wrong without also telling us what is right, understanding that > >> > people want and need to feel valued, that they want to feel like > > they > >> > are part of the solution, that teir voice can be heard.by > >> > harnessing the power of this new media to reach out to a group of > >> > people who feel they have no voice and are being left behind... > >> > > >> > Heath > >> > http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com > >> > > >> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, > "J. Rhett Aultman" > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> The fundamental question I have is
Re: [videoblogging] Re: John Edwards to Run for President (announcement on YouTube)
I never said anything about ideological biases in the media one way or another. The major sources of news are, for the most part, conduits for what they can get. The current series of political strategists for the right are, however, masters of the echo chamber effect in ways that the political strategists for the left are not. It's a simple fact that anyone facing a Rove-assisted politician will face an echo chamber. It's his primary weapon, above everything else. You are right that it's about taking the offensive. That's why I don't think Edwards can win. His weak points are already known and ripe for the punching, and as much as he wants to counterpunch, he's not going to be able to aim for soft spots. Should he make it out of the primaries alive, I don't believe he could survive the first haymaker his opponent delivers, no matter how positive, accessible, or grassroots he is. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime > Kerry killed myself with his own words, and are you saying > the "media" is conservitive? One station is conservitive, people > didn't believe in Kerry, he offered no clear plan, none, just talk, > people need to feel related to, that is what made Clinton popular, > even though I did not like him, he made people feel like they > mattered.and that does matter..you take the offesive, not the > defensive, and democratics are always on the defensive. > > Heath > http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> I'm curious as to how you believe that these things will pull out a > win >> against an opponent whose primary weapon is the echo chamber, > guaranteeing >> that, for every assertion you make, there will be an army of people > on >> every media outlet imaginable all saying the exact same > contradiction to >> whatever Edwards/Clinton/Whoever says. Kerry often dug his own > grave in >> 2004, but it's also very true that he was smothered out in the > media-- >> every one of his merits became sidelined, niggled, and confused; > every one >> of his blunders instantly became a gaping flaw (think about > the "flip >> flopper" label he earned). >> >> The grassroots is great for taking Congress, but not a Presidency. > I >> still remember in 2004 as I marched in the streets for Kerry (even > though >> I didn't really like him) and found that our assembled grassroots > power >> paled in comparison to the regimented and well-funded power the > Bush 2004 >> campaign had. We had our signs, chants, hope, and energy. They > had their >> signs, chants, hope, and energy...and several "party wagon" > vehicles...and >> a DJ...and threw major parties that got young people registered and > hyped >> up for Bush...and...and... >> >> My sincere belief is that 2008 will be a battle of insiders. > Anyone who >> is overly grassroots is going to find themself in a fourth and long. >> >> -- >> Rhett. >> http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime >> >> > By talking plain and simple, by fighting back when he's right, by >> > offering clear solutions to issues, by not gettign side tracked, > by >> > addressing issues, by being human, by not just telling us what is >> > wrong without also telling us what is right, understanding that >> > people want and need to feel valued, that they want to feel like > they >> > are part of the solution, that teir voice can be heard.by >> > harnessing the power of this new media to reach out to a group of >> > people who feel they have no voice and are being left behind... >> > >> > Heath >> > http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com >> > >> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "J. Rhett Aultman" >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> The fundamental question I have is how he'd handle another Rove- > run >> >> campaign. Both he and Kerry basically let a Rove campaign > smother >> > them >> >> in punches and mud last time, and knowledge of the world doesn't >> > protect >> >> you from Mr. Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Rhett. >> >> http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime >> >> >> >> Robert Scoble wrote: >> >> >> >> >Might be, but it's clear he spent the past four years beefing up >> > his knowledge of the world too, visiting dozens of countries. >> >> > >> >> >Robert >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > - Original Message - >> >> > From: J. Rhett Aultman >> >> > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com >> >> > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:43 AM >> >> > Subject: Re: [videoblogging] John Edwards to Run for President >> > (announcement on YouTube) >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > He won't tank Dean-style, but he ran four years ago, giving > his >> > enemies >> >> > plenty of time and opportunity to find all his weak spots. An >> > Edwards >> >> > campaign is, in my mind, walking wounded already. >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > Rhett. >> >> > http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime >> >> > >> >> > Joey Profit wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >John Edwards harnessing the internets. I wonder if he'll tank >> > like Howard Dea
RE: [videoblogging] Re: John Edwards to Run for President (announcement on YouTube)
To me, you can't compare the presidential campaigns of 2004 to the one happening now. In 2004 we were in the midst of war. Even though people didn't like Bush, many rationalized it as being too dangerous or too potentially complicating to switch presidents in the middle of such international crisis. I know this because I have friends in the army, even some who were deployed in Iraq, who swore they hated Bush BUT felt that for the aforementioned reasons, he should remain president. Also, you forget that the Democrats had their own roundabout media powerhouses like P. Diddy, Paris Hilton, and the such, campaigning for the youngsters to "rock the vote," which while claiming non-partisanship were largely lobbying for the Democrats by insinuating the threat of the draft if Bush were to remain president. While I love Hillary Clinton and want her to win, I think the combined fact that she's a woman and her liberal record will make her presidential campaign reminiscent of the "grassroots" movement that you reference, more so than someone like Edwards, who has enough exposure and general liberal-conservative appeal to win the presidency. Obreahny O'Brien To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 08:10:30 -0800Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: John Edwards to Run for President (announcement on YouTube) I'm curious as to how you believe that these things will pull out a winagainst an opponent whose primary weapon is the echo chamber, guaranteeingthat, for every assertion you make, there will be an army of people onevery media outlet imaginable all saying the exact same contradiction towhatever Edwards/Clinton/Whoever says. Kerry often dug his own grave in2004, but it's also very true that he was smothered out in the media--every one of his merits became sidelined, niggled, and confused; every oneof his blunders instantly became a gaping flaw (think about the "flipflopper" label he earned).The grassroots is great for taking Congress, but not a Presidency. Istill remember in 2004 as I marched in the streets for Kerry (even thoughI didn't really like him) and found that our assembled grassroots powerpaled in comparison to the regimented and well-funded power the Bush 2004campaign had. We had our signs, chants, hope, and energy. They had theirsigns, chants, hope, and energy...and several "party wagon" vehicles...anda DJ...and threw major parties that got young people registered and hypedup for Bush...and...and...My sincere belief is that 2008 will be a battle of insiders. Anyone whois overly grassroots is going to find themself in a fourth and long.--Rhett.http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime> By talking plain and simple, by fighting back when he's right, by> offering clear solutions to issues, by not gettign side tracked, by> addressing issues, by being human, by not just telling us what is> wrong without also telling us what is right, understanding that> people want and need to feel valued, that they want to feel like they> are part of the solution, that teir voice can be heard.by> harnessing the power of this new media to reach out to a group of> people who feel they have no voice and are being left behind...>> Heath> http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com>> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "J. Rhett Aultman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:>>>> The fundamental question I have is how he'd handle another Rove-run>> campaign. Both he and Kerry basically let a Rove campaign smother> them>> in punches and mud last time, and knowledge of the world doesn't> protect>> you from Mr. Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap.>>>> -->> Rhett.>> http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime>>>> Robert Scoble wrote:>>>> >Might be, but it's clear he spent the past four years beefing up> his knowledge of the world too, visiting dozens of countries.>> >>> >Robert>> >>> >>> > - Original Message ->> > From: J. Rhett Aultman>> > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com>> > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:43 AM>> > Subject: Re: [videoblogging] John Edwards to Run for President> (announcement on YouTube)>> >>> >>> > He won't tank Dean-style, but he ran four years ago, giving his> enemies>> > plenty of time and opportunity to find all his weak spots. An> Edwards>> > campaign is, in my mind, walking wounded already.>> >>> > -->> > Rhett.>> > http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime>> >>> > Joey Profit wrote:>> >>> > >John Edwards harnessing the internets. I wonder if he'll tank> like Howard Dean.>> > >>>
Re: [videoblogging] Re: John Edwards to Run for President (announcement on YouTube)
I'm curious as to how you believe that these things will pull out a win against an opponent whose primary weapon is the echo chamber, guaranteeing that, for every assertion you make, there will be an army of people on every media outlet imaginable all saying the exact same contradiction to whatever Edwards/Clinton/Whoever says. Kerry often dug his own grave in 2004, but it's also very true that he was smothered out in the media-- every one of his merits became sidelined, niggled, and confused; every one of his blunders instantly became a gaping flaw (think about the "flip flopper" label he earned). The grassroots is great for taking Congress, but not a Presidency. I still remember in 2004 as I marched in the streets for Kerry (even though I didn't really like him) and found that our assembled grassroots power paled in comparison to the regimented and well-funded power the Bush 2004 campaign had. We had our signs, chants, hope, and energy. They had their signs, chants, hope, and energy...and several "party wagon" vehicles...and a DJ...and threw major parties that got young people registered and hyped up for Bush...and...and... My sincere belief is that 2008 will be a battle of insiders. Anyone who is overly grassroots is going to find themself in a fourth and long. -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime > By talking plain and simple, by fighting back when he's right, by > offering clear solutions to issues, by not gettign side tracked, by > addressing issues, by being human, by not just telling us what is > wrong without also telling us what is right, understanding that > people want and need to feel valued, that they want to feel like they > are part of the solution, that teir voice can be heard.by > harnessing the power of this new media to reach out to a group of > people who feel they have no voice and are being left behind... > > Heath > http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "J. Rhett Aultman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> The fundamental question I have is how he'd handle another Rove-run >> campaign. Both he and Kerry basically let a Rove campaign smother > them >> in punches and mud last time, and knowledge of the world doesn't > protect >> you from Mr. Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap. >> >> -- >> Rhett. >> http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime >> >> Robert Scoble wrote: >> >> >Might be, but it's clear he spent the past four years beefing up > his knowledge of the world too, visiting dozens of countries. >> > >> >Robert >> > >> > >> > - Original Message - >> > From: J. Rhett Aultman >> > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com >> > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:43 AM >> > Subject: Re: [videoblogging] John Edwards to Run for President > (announcement on YouTube) >> > >> > >> > He won't tank Dean-style, but he ran four years ago, giving his > enemies >> > plenty of time and opportunity to find all his weak spots. An > Edwards >> > campaign is, in my mind, walking wounded already. >> > >> > -- >> > Rhett. >> > http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime >> > >> > Joey Profit wrote: >> > >> > >John Edwards harnessing the internets. I wonder if he'll tank > like Howard Dean. >> > > >> > >--Joey >> > > >> > >On 27/12/06, andrew michael baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > >>Today Joanne, Chuck and I are out in New Orleans. >> > >> >> > >>We just filmed John Edwards' first announcement that he is > running >> > >>for president. >> > >> >> > >>I just uploaded the video to John Edwards' YouTube account. >> > >> >> > >>http://youtube.com/watch? > v=1etlZaf6zUw">http://youtube.com/ >> > >>watch?v=1etlZaf6zUw >> > >> >> > >>(BTW, it may look like a photo op, but Edwards has been > working out >> > >>here all day and has been providing major support since last > year >> > >>when Katrina hit). >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >Yahoo! Groups Links >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >Yahoo! Groups Links >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
