backtop


Print 56 comment(s) - last by Reclaimer77.. on Jan 28 at 4:46 PM


President Obama plans to use YouTube, Twitter, email, and texts to organize his supporters to push legislation and get public feedback. Some are fearful that his efforts will create a government-controlled news channel, which will supplant independent journalism, though.  (Source: YouTube)
Obama tries to create a direct news network to citizens, but is it overreaching?

President Barack Obama, once a community organizer, swayed the public largely via a heavily funded grass-roots campaign, which saw tremendous presence on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and other online outlets.

Now as he begins to push many ambitious and challenging legislative initiatives, he's turning to these same internet outlets, retooling from election mode into a means of garnering public support.  In doing so he's setting an archetype likely to be followed by Presidents and policy makers to come.

The new group, Organizing for America, housed at the Democratic National Committee, (rather than the White House) will help Obama direct his campaigns.  It will communicate with an army of volunteers and supporters via text message, email, and internet sites.

The move in some ways echoes President Bush's numerous public addresses and news conferences, which saw him trying to skip by the press and take his message directly to the people.  Likewise, President Obama plans to try to skip the media, while delivering his message directly to the public, albeit via a more high tech mode.

Where past Presidents recorded a weekly radio address, President Obama records a weekly YouTube video.  The videos are also posted to the White House website.  His video last week discussing the bailout package garnered 600,000 hits in a single day.

One major obstacle that President Obama faces in communicating via the internet is restrictions on his list of 13 million supporters' email addresses, which he previously compiled.  He is unable to use this list, due to restrictions on such data compiled for political (election-related) purposes.  The DNC is starting from scratch a new list, which will be valid as it’s created solely to help convey President Obama's message.  To help jump start it, the DNC has been allowed by law to email a message to the previous listing inviting them to join the new list.

The organizers, determination, vigor, and a solid plan face big challenges in accomplishing their goals of reaching the masses via technology.  Describes David Plouffe, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager and one of the organizers of this effort, "This has obviously never been undertaken before.  So it’s going to be a little trial and error."

That might be an understatement, considering the group has yet to feature a fully developed website, reach funding agreements with the DNC, and start its own fund-raising.  One thing the organization does have going for it is a clever reference to the name of his former campaign organization with the organization's initials, O.F.A., conveniently also applying to the prior Obama for America campaign.

As well as organizational challenges, President Obama's organizers face division within his own party.  Some in Congress fear that he will use the new organization as a means to lobby the public to pressure members of Congress on legislation.  Mr. Plouffe tries to mollify these critics, stating, "This is not a political campaign.  This is not a ‘call or e-mail your member of Congress’ organization."

Rather he and President Obama view the organization as a two-way street, to both offer information on the President's message, and to get feedback from the public on issues.

Some see the new efforts as a result of a public DIY spirit when it comes to journalism.  Says Macon Phillips, the “new media” director for Mr. Obama’s administration, "Historically the media has been able to draw out a lot of information and characterize it for people.  And there’s a growing appetite from people to do it themselves."

However, others in the journalistic community, on both sides of the political aisle, are fearful that the new initiative is an attempt to create a government-controlled news outlet to supplant independent news outlets, and further that it could indeed succeed in doing so.  Bill Kovach, the chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists, "They’re beginning to create their own journalism, their own description of events of the day, but it’s not an independent voice making that description.  It’s troublesome until we know how it’s going to be used and the degree to which it can be used on behalf of the people, and not on behalf of only one point of view."

Thus the organizational, social, and political challenges have only just begun as President Obama tries to continue to use the internet to further his message.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

what?
By Dreifort on 1/28/2009 9:18:09 AM , Rating: -1
quote:
Whether you admire or disagree with the policies of new President Barack Obama, there's no argument that he's the most tech savvy president to date.


What about JFK using...TV? Or John Tyler using...the Telegraph? How about Herbert Hoover using..the radio?

This media keeps coming up with more and more reasons to love Obama -- and he hasn't even done anything yet, except sign a document that could release a 100 or so terrorist bent on blowing up the US.

This love affair will never end {shaking head}.

Least not forget that technology is usually introduced and greeted with several security breaches.




RE: what?
By Bender 123 on 1/28/2009 9:25:54 AM , Rating: 5
@POTUS wrote: Workin on Bailout. ton$ o ca$h for hoopty makin. Vote me up. LOL.

@Biden responded: ROFL! LMAO! Bailout money FTW! WOOOOOOOOOT!!!! GOP is suxxxxxors.


RE: what?
By Dreifort on 1/28/2009 9:26:39 AM , Rating: 2
and for those who think I am just attacking Obama....you could learn about other Presidents who took advantage of technology available in their day:

Tyler: Reorganized the Navy to establish the nucleus of the present Naval Observatory and to promote a national telegraph system

Hoover: Hoover's radio conferences played a key role in the early organization, development and regulation of radio broadcasting. Hoover played a key role in major projects for navigation, irrigation of dry lands, electrical power, and flood control.

JFK: If it wasn't for TV, his popularity would never have taken off as it did.


RE: what?
By Dreifort on 1/28/2009 10:16:45 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Whether you admire or disagree with the policies of new President Barack Obama, there's no argument that he's the most tech savvy president to date.


Nice... someone edited the original news post on here to remove the first paragraph about Obama being the most tech savvy. ha.


RE: what?
By mdogs444 on 1/28/2009 9:37:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
and he hasn't even done anything yet, except sign a document that could release a 100 or so terrorist bent on blowing up the US.

Actually he's readying to sign a bill right now. The will be now classify people who protest against gay marriage and "gay rights" to be convicted of hate crimes if they use the word "gay" in their protest or signs. But anyone who's protesting FOR gay rights and uses the word gay is just fine.

Oh he's doing stuff...Can you say "San Francisco Values"?


RE: what?
By therealnickdanger on 1/28/2009 9:39:38 AM , Rating: 2
Don't be fooled, Pelosi is running our government right now, not Obama...


RE: what?
By mdogs444 on 1/28/2009 9:42:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Pelosi is running our government right now

That's even scarier. $300M in contraceptives to states to help boost the economy! C'mon Nancy, don't think we see through this?

And while she wants Gitmo closed, lets send those terrorist to San Francisco and see how she likes it?


RE: what?
By sgw2n5 on 1/28/2009 9:46:47 AM , Rating: 2
Glad to see you caught yesterday's "talking points"


RE: what?
By mdogs444 on 1/28/2009 10:10:47 AM , Rating: 1
These have been known for over 7 days now. If you just found this out yesterday...then I think you need to catch up a bit libby...


RE: what?
By sgw2n5 on 1/28/2009 10:44:04 AM , Rating: 4
Sorry, my bad.

I haven't had time to watch Fox News or listen to Rush as of late. You know how it goes... been busy forcing people into homosexual marriages, abortions, subverting the economy and burning American flags all while defecating on pictures of GWB and jesus as I smoke pot.

Yeah, us crazy libertarians... hardly any time to get my head filled with propaganda as of late.


RE: what?
By Dreifort on 1/28/2009 10:45:47 AM , Rating: 2
It wasn't covered by Rush or Fox.


RE: what?
By sgw2n5 on 1/28/2009 10:55:47 AM , Rating: 1
I wouldn't know.

Which story are we talking about here, the Pelosi crusade against bastard children or the Obama letting terrorists loose in the heartland (and likely arming them as well).


RE: what?
By Dreifort on 1/28/2009 11:25:47 AM , Rating: 3
Pelosi crusade.


RE: what?
By Suntan on 1/28/2009 10:59:30 AM , Rating: 2
I heard about it the other day from reading an article on www.money.com a subsidiary of CNN.

In any case, what does it matter where the news came from? If it is factual, that is what matters.

-Suntan


RE: what?
By Moishe on 1/28/2009 11:33:12 AM , Rating: 5
I see how it is... someone says "hey what about..." and it's gotta be slanted and wrong?

No thanks.
I read daily and I've seen some pretty good data on what the bailout bill provides funds for. Some of it is absolutely absurd and it's chock full of earmarks and pork. This from the President who is *supposedly* against pork and earmarks.

But I realize that by me reading and thinking for myself and actually wanting more information... well I'm just a righty who hates Obama. God-forbid I question where my money is going. God-forbid I ask the elected officials to be accountable for their actions and their spending.

What we need is more informed citizens who will ask for the data and question the power grabs and political tactics of our government.

If you're supporting this enormous government growth and loss of private sector... don't call yourself a libertarian.


RE: what?
By MrBungle123 on 1/28/2009 11:38:00 AM , Rating: 2
+1 Moishe, I would love to vote you up but unfortunately I posted already.


RE: what?
By sgw2n5 on 1/28/2009 11:40:04 AM , Rating: 1
Yep, I totally said that I support the bailout, enormous federal growth, and loss of private sector. I totally said all of that...


RE: what?
By Moishe on 1/28/2009 11:45:46 AM , Rating: 3
Don't play dumb. Every post you've made in this thread makes fun of others who either oppose or question the bailout bill.

You don't have to explicitly say you agree with it. Why not have a logical debate instead of throwing rocks? What about this bailout bill is good and how can you answer the questions that we have that are based on facts?

This is how adults debate.


RE: what?
By sgw2n5 on 1/28/2009 11:58:29 AM , Rating: 2
Aren't adults also supposed to possess at least elementary reading comprehension skills? How can any adult debate you when you won't be able to understand the meaning of their posts?

I said nothing about the bailout, and I happen to think it was a terrible idea when Bush did it, and it is a terrible idea now. I was merely commenting on how some people think that Obama is going to release terrorists in the US .

As I said earlier, there are a lot of REAL things to criticize Obama for, so why make up things to criticize him about?


RE: what?
By Moishe on 1/28/2009 12:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
OK I'll bite.
quote:
"...except sign a document that could release a 100 or so terrorist bent on blowing up the US." -Dreifort


He didn't say "releasing into" the U.S. at all.

What are the possibilities for the Gitmo closing?
1.) Prisoners incarcerated inside the U.S. (not released)
2.) Released to their home country (in which case many will return to terrorism bent on blowing up the U.S.)
3.) Place them into another prison outside the U.S.

Obama isn't stupid. I honestly don't believe you can even get into the Presidential office without some reasonable amount of smarts. On the other hand, this Gitmo closing action looks like a PR move without serious thought for what will happen after it's close, which just happens to be the most important thing to think about.


RE: what?
By sgw2n5 on 1/28/2009 12:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
No need to "bite", I'm not trolling.

And yes, you are correct, Dreifort did not say that Obama was going to release them into the US, that was bunghole123.

I agree that Obama closing Gitmo was a PR move, pure and simple. I also think that there isn't a chance in hell that any of the terrorists will live out their lives outside of a jail cell.


RE: what?
By Moishe on 1/28/2009 12:24:02 PM , Rating: 2
Ahhh I see that post... and actually he has a good point.

IF the detainees are put into U.S. prisons with U.S. rights they could easily (maybe likely) get released into the U.S.

So... based on his reasoning, I think he's god a point. If this happens though it wouldn't be directly the fault of the Obama administration because the judge, jury, lawyers, etc would be the ones making the decision to let these guys out and the decision on where they are placed when then get out.

Frankly, I think we have enough of a problem with regular illegal aliens without importing the ones who fought against us in a war. These people should be shipped back home IF they get out. They fought and they should deal with the consequences.


RE: what?
By Screwballl on 1/28/2009 10:37:20 AM , Rating: 2
Time to open up and use Alcatraz again!


RE: what?
By mdogs444 on 1/28/2009 9:40:47 AM , Rating: 1
For those who want more information on this: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vie...


RE: what?
By sgw2n5 on 1/28/09, Rating: 0
RE: what?
By mdogs444 on 1/28/2009 10:09:17 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Obama is going to release 100 terrorists that are "bent on blowing us up."

Sure he will. He wants to sit down and eat dinner with Iran, cheers some Vodka with Putin, and put his face on the new "Food Stamp" dollar bill. So I don't see why he wouldn't...


RE: what?
By sgw2n5 on 1/28/2009 10:51:11 AM , Rating: 1
I'm sure you really believe it too.

Hey, wait a minute, I thought Obama was a secret mooslin athiest commie? Why would he want to eat dinner with an entire country?

I'll only believe that he wants to eat dinner with an entire middle eastern country if it comes out that they were planning on having aborted fetus puree with a tall glass of baby jesus tears. Likely Putin would want to get in on that action as well...


RE: what?
By Dreifort on 1/28/09, Rating: 0
RE: what?
By MrBungle123 on 1/28/09, Rating: 0
RE: what?
By sgw2n5 on 1/28/2009 11:51:19 AM , Rating: 3
First of all, I'm nowhere near being a liberal (or a butthurt neo-con for that matter).

Secondly, if you truly believe that ANY president would knowingly and willingly release dangerous terrorists into US territories, you have been taken by propaganda and are a fool.

I don't like Obama or some of his policies any more than you do, but if your going to criticize him, at least come up with something that is, well you know, true.


RE: what?
By MrBungle123 on 1/28/2009 12:32:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
First of all, I'm nowhere near being a liberal (or a butthurt neo-con for that matter).


Oh of course not, you just use recycled leftist talking points for all your posts... my bad.

quote:
Secondly, if you truly believe that ANY president would knowingly and willingly release dangerous terrorists into US territories, you have been taken by propaganda and are a fool.


Hmmm... Lets see Obama signs an exectutive order closing guantanamo, then Pennsylvania Representative John Murtha says its fine by him to move the detainees into his state, and doing this under the guise of "economic stimulus" by constructing a new prision to house them. However as soon as these people come onto US soil they are allowed rights under the US constitution, the rights they will be given under the circumstances of their capture will effectively grant them release.

Ok you can go back to reading moveon.org now.


RE: what?
By sgw2n5 on 1/28/2009 1:10:46 PM , Rating: 2
Ahh, now I see.
If you don't agree with bunghole123's made up and outlandish claims, your a dirty stinking commie.

Please enlighten me, what leftist talking points have I been throwing around there partner?

So a few months ago, when Bush was still president and I happened to agree with several of his policies, was I a right-wing nut job then?

quote:
Hmmm... Lets see Obama signs an exectutive order closing guantanamo, then Pennsylvania Representative John Murtha says its fine by him to move the detainees into his state, and doing this under the guise of "economic stimulus" by constructing a new prision to house them. However as soon as these people come onto US soil they are allowed rights under the US constitution, the rights they will be given under the circumstances of their capture will effectively grant them release.

That's idiotic. Did you come up with that all by your self?


RE: what?
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/2009 12:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
Not that Obama cares, but it's highly unconstitutional to use the Justice Department to have trials for captured POW's in a war. This clearly falls under the executive branch in wartime, and under the breach of powers act, gives the Judicial system unconstitutional power beyond the scope of it's charter.

Not to mention it defies common sense. US CITIZENS have a right to a fair trial and to face their accusers. Terrorist captured on the battlefield ( or any other enemy soldiers ) clearly do NOT have those rights.

This is, yet another, attempt by Liberal congressmen and the power hungry Nance P to clearly undermine the powers of the Executive branch and to cripple our ability to have an effective War on Terror.

Congress wants everything to literally be an act of congress.


RE: what?
By MrBungle123 on 1/28/2009 1:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not that Obama cares, but it's highly unconstitutional to use the Justice Department to have trials for captured POW's in a war. This clearly falls under the executive branch in wartime, and under the breach of powers act, gives the Judicial system unconstitutional power beyond the scope of it's charter.


Well you know our pal Barry has been quoted as saying that the problem with the constituion is that it is a document of negative liberties since it only says what the government can't do.


RE: what?
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/2009 4:46:23 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah lol. His " The Constitution is a negative rights document " statement.

God what an idiot. And, dare I say, pretty ironic coming from an African American who was elected to the highest office in the country.


RE: what?
By CurtOien on 1/28/2009 9:51:07 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
he hasn't even done anything yet, except sign a document that could release a 100 or so terrorist bent on blowing up the US.


Do you think that maybe some of the "terrorists" that they are going to release may actually be CIA who hope to infiltrate the "terrorists" organizations.


RE: what?
By hnau on 1/28/2009 10:45:25 AM , Rating: 1
when you're right, you're right.


RE: what?
By Dreifort on 1/28/2009 10:47:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
when you're right, you're right.


actually, when you're right, you're rated down.


RE: what?
By sgw2n5 on 1/28/2009 11:04:22 AM , Rating: 1
Silly neo-cons. Fear tactics haven't worked since '04.

That or you really believe that Obama is going to personally release 100 terrorists who want to kill us.

Either way, I'd be willing to bet you probably weren't rated down because of how right you were.


RE: what?
By hnau on 1/28/2009 11:17:31 AM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure he was voted down because the leftists and their broken logic realized they had no valid retort to contest factual statements.


RE: what?
By sgw2n5 on 1/28/2009 12:25:23 PM , Rating: 2
yep, that's gotta be it.


RE: what?
By Moishe on 1/28/2009 11:42:40 AM , Rating: 4
*Raises hand* "Mr. President, it's cool that we close Gitmo... but where are we gonna put the prisoners?"

By claiming that this is a "fear tactic" you are basically exposing what you really think.
A.) How dare anyone question this decision
B.) Anyone opposing Obama is a right-wing crazy

This is kind of humorous because I heard many, many things about how it was patriotic to question the Bush Administration. Now it's not cool? I call BS. Citizens should always question and the question of where the f*cking prisoners are going to be located is a VERY valid question. Obama is a man and he's a politician and both of these mean that he's prone to mistakes and he is doing what *HE* wants done and damn the consequences (just like Bush, just like Clinton, etc, etc). We have a right (so far) and a duty to question.


RE: what?
By sgw2n5 on 1/28/2009 12:03:22 PM , Rating: 2
There is a big difference between asking where the detainees are going to reside after Gitmo closes, and falsely stating that Obama is going to release them into the US. Surely you understand this?

And yes, I stand by the fact that if you think that Obama is going to release terrorists into the US, you are likely a right wing crazy. You even managed to imply that Obama is going to take away our freedom of speech in your last post. You seem kinda out there to me.


RE: what?
By Moishe on 1/28/2009 12:12:13 PM , Rating: 2
Your whole argument rests on this:
quote:
Obama is going to release terrorists into the US


Read my other post where I explain that Dreifort did NOT say that Obama would be releasing terrorists into the U.S. Apparently the quote was taken just slightly wrong by you and now we're arguing about absolutely nothing.

I've never implied anything about Obama removing our freedom of speech. If you're going to accuse, please at least accuse me of something I did. Thanks.


RE: what?
By sgw2n5 on 1/28/2009 12:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
How does this read to you?

quote:
We have a right (so far) and a duty to question.


Am I to believe that the "(so far)" part of your sentence was an unfortunate series of typo's?


RE: what?
By Moishe on 1/28/2009 12:29:12 PM , Rating: 2
Not at all. "So far" means what I intended... We have a duty to speak and so far we have the freedom to speak. I believe in using what you have, while you have it.

Obama is where he is because of that freedom and no doubt he knows that. I see plenty of others on all sides trying actively to shut down those who oppose them. Over the years this has grown a lot in this country and we may in the future not be allowed to say what we think for fear of attack. All the government has to do is classify a certain type of opinion to be "hate-speach" and we're already starting down the road.


RE: what?
By Moishe on 1/28/2009 12:34:07 PM , Rating: 2
Actually reminds me a bit of V for Vendetta... great movie.

It's a shame that "tolerance" is held up as the best thing ever but it has no substance. People still try to prevent people from thinking and from gaining information. It's all a method of control and I can see how the general attitude in the U.S. has changed over the past ten years.

It's a shame that "we" want to hurt our constitutional rights just to advance our personal opinion. We win in the short term, but in the long term we have given up one of our most sacred rights.


RE: what?
By Dreifort on 1/28/2009 1:14:15 PM , Rating: 3
well, with Obama's new Hate Crime bills going to legislation..

- Use the word "Gay"..it's a hate crime.
- If you are for sending illegal immigrants back home, that's a hate crime for hating illegals.
- If you shoot somone stealing your money, hate crime against the poor.
- And, if you oppose the current president on ANY topic...yep, hate crime because he's a man of color.

Aside from the sarcasim - the media does treat any talking aginst Obama like racism. Sad. Grow up media and other far-leftys. We are opposed to Obama for his political values, not his skin color.


"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki