Saw this link to a post via Scripting News
It would appear that a thoughtful voter could easily write off Howard Dean as a non-entity after spending 30 minutes at his Web site. And perhaps this process can be repeated for the other candidates. Are there any Dean supporters who would care to use the comments section to note brilliant ideas from the Howard Dean campaign that I’ve overlooked? And would one have been more likely to discover these ideas watching Dean on TV rather than looking at his Web site?
If Dean is “just like the other candidates, then I guess he’s NOT a “non-entity” either. He’s right there in the mix.
And no, watching him on television is IN NO WAY going to give a voter a better idea about the Dean campaign, because, the reason his campaign is different is that one can meet others there. You cannot get a sense for the things his supporters rtalk about and why THEY like him from what Dean tidbits and soundbites are shown. That is the “Old media” wing of the campaign. This poster should know better, being a Weblogger and all. Other candidates don’t even know how to talk about their “Web” campaigns. That just have someone do it for them, and have other people talk about it for them. I haven’t heard ONE WORD from Bush’s mouth about his “philosophy/startegy” of Online Communty. My guess is that he is “Clueless”.
I haven’t heard ONE WORD from Bush’s mouth about his “philosophy/startegy” of Online Communty. My guess is that he is “Clueless.”
Bush generally does come off as being clueless. Part of it is just the way he talks. The other part is his lone ranger style of leadership. When he’s right, he comes off looking great. But when he’s wrong, he’s the stubborn idiot. I think his best ability is choosing to put smarter people around him. Unfortunately, it seems like Bush ignores these people when he’s already made up his mind about something.
The reason Dean is catering to the ’blogging community is that he hopes to bring non-voters to the polls. Bush does not need to make a special effort to be heard. All the news outlets broadcast everything he says because he is the President, and the Republican base is used to operating in the current format. “Old media” or not—it works.
I don’t know if he “chose” to put smarter people around him. I think he was CHOSEN as the front for those behind him.
Kind of goes back to the political “appearance” and name recognition and all the stuff that “works” politically. He appears so “deer in the headlights” on so many public occasions.
As for Bush not “needing to make a special effort to be heard, I do not agree. If he wants to “stick to the traditional channels”, you’re right. On TV and in the traditonal media, he does not. But if he wants to “join the conversation”, he’s got a lot to learn. As I intimated before, he’s way into the “Good Ol’ Boys network”. The Web and the “Emergent” wisdom are not on their radar. Yeah, it “Works”, but I’m not into basin my sense of what’s right and wrong in political ethics to “what works”. There has to be some serious attention to “wisdom” about what kind of dialogue is happening. The Bush administration’s ignoring of even their “old-style” information system and intellignece network is clear example of how “anti-conversation” they really are. They are , as the Cluetrain authors say: “Clueless”
They don’t say this about Bush neccessarily, but to entities that have not recognized that the “conversation” is important and influential and where people are. They (the Bush team) are very much steeped in “old system” and “conversation” is just a buzz word to them, just like “community” is for most companies when they talk about their web strategy.
It may work now, but I have to be concerned also about the future. And , in many ways, it DOESN’T “work” NOW EITHER. I trust this administration less than I have trusted any other. They lied, deceived, and therefore I put nothing past them anymore. And they will continue to lie. I have NO TRUST in the “Christian veneer” they peddle. Actions speak louder than words.
Having said all that, I apologize for what might sound like any harshness directed toward you. I appreciate your comments. I just got going , and my “distrust” came out.
Dale
I have NO TRUST in the “Christian veneer” they peddle.
I do not trust a politician’s claims to Christ (or anyone else’s for that matter). It usually comes off as mere politicking. There has never been a President of the US that did not claim to be Christian.
Jesus says that not all who claim to follow him are genuine. The differences between a genuine Christian and a fake should become obvious in time, like fruit reveals the type of tree that bore it. Regardless, God knows who are his children, and he will make the final distinction at the Judgement. Matthew 7:15–21
Chris,
Very well said. I now feel a lot worse about “venting” as I did after your first post. We are very close on those topics (although I haven’t come very close to voting Republican – 🙂 )
I too was less “concerned” about Afghanistan (although I became much more so when I saw the “collateral damage and heard the “justifications” , and heard the start of the aim being shifted to Iraq— I then saw a larger, darker side to all of it, including Afghanistan — the lack of recogtnition of how this kind of “force-show” has and continues to CREATE more terrorists just as it did the perpetrators of the UN towers tragedy. I soundly abhor and denounce THEIR use of violence as well as OURS. But to realize and recognize OUR role in creating these conditions and resentments that create the CLIMATE for terrorists is not in any way an endorsement; I say the same for all senseless violence; the difference with me and others is that sometimes what we inflict is also “senseless” in a context larger than our own nationalistic, etno-centric sense of “sense”.
Excellent comments.
Dale
WOW!!!! This is a great website.
steven