links for 2007-06-30
by Patrick Ruffini :: June 30th, 2007 8:22 am-
I was really annoyed by all those Books and iRead emails. Kudos.
-
Wall to wall F8 coverage continues…
![]()
Comments (0)
Trackbacks (0)
del.icio.us
digg it
subscribe
iWall: The iPhone Videowall
by Patrick Ruffini :: June 30th, 2007 12:29 amI threw this together in about half an hour.
This one’s *a lot* more active than the other one. There’s a new video coming in every few seconds it seems.
![]()
Comments (0)
Trackbacks (0)
del.icio.us
digg it
subscribe
Hillary’s Record. An Outrage.
by Patrick Ruffini :: June 29th, 2007 4:11 pm
![]()
Comments (0)
Trackbacks (0)
del.icio.us
digg it
subscribe
links for 2007-06-29
by Patrick Ruffini :: June 29th, 2007 8:24 am-
Ah, ha… just in time! Good news for non-iPhone customers on the Network with the Most Dropped Calls?
![]()
Comments (0)
Trackbacks (0)
del.icio.us
digg it
subscribe
2008 Wire: Facebook Group
by Patrick Ruffini :: June 28th, 2007 11:46 pm
The 2008 Presidential Wire now has a group on Facebook. I’ll be using it to solicit your advice on feature requests and beta test new functionality. Join today.
Speaking of Facebook, I’m pretty much approving any friend requests these days, Scoble-like, so feel free to friend me if you want to connect. I’m actually curious about who reads this blog. (Shocker, I know.)
![]()
Comments (0)
Trackbacks (0)
del.icio.us
digg it
subscribe
Are MittTV and HillaryHub Innovative?
by Patrick Ruffini :: June 28th, 2007 7:10 pmI’d just as soon not bring this up, as I’ve probably had beers with everyone involved with this post. But I feel that the cause of good, solid reporting on what Presidential eCampaignmeisters is worth setting the record straight.
Jonathan Martin brings up MittTV as an interesting example of Mitt going around the “media filter,” a la HillaryHub. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen MittTV signed out in writeups of Romney’s website, and every time I have to ask, “Why?”
What is MittTV? It’s Mitt Romney’s videos on his website, draped in a custom player and a zingy name. But who isn’t posting videos to the Web and YouTube? A number of candidates are even using their name and “TV” in the branding! Here’s BarackTV and Hillary TV. Now, Romney’s folks have been more aggressive about posting news clips of their guy to their YouTube channel, which is just smart strategy, but that’s about the only differentiator to this that I can see.
Meanwhile, another worthwhile Romney effort, the Sign Up America campaign which signed up 30,000 supporters in 24 hours, didn’t get as much play in the media. But over the long run, it’s stuff like this — the boring game of inches of recruiting volunteers and donors — that has the greater impact.
Likewise, HillaryHub has gotten a lot of pixels and ink. Ben Smith did an article for the Politico on it that quoted me. We know that Hillary’s campaign loves the Drudge Report, so it’s not altogether surprising to see them launch a Drudge clone. The overall concept of embargoing news so you can roadblock folks at your campaign website is one with huge upside for the campaigns. But is HillaryHub the most significant thing the Clinton campaign will do online this cycle? Not even close, at least according to the traffic numbers. Traffic to the main Hillary site dwarfs that to HillaryHub, except when it’s mentioned somewhere in the press, confirming my hunch that microsites are mostly good for one- or two-time earned media hits. With these press mentions, the Clinton campaign has probably gotten 90% of the mileage they’re going to get out of HillaryHub.
By comparison, this week the campaign launched a suite of community tools at Connect.HillaryClinton.com to compete with My.BarackObama.com That barely got noticed at all. It doesn’t have the same sizzle, but they probably spent much more time developing it than HillaryHub.
When it comes to covering the online campaigns, reporters tend to hone in on stuff that’s actually pretty easy by comparison. Throwing up a YouTube video or a MySpace page. Cleverly repackaged press content. Anything goofy. It’s easy for campaigns to get thrown off by this, and keep going after press hit after press hit. But some of the most important technology work that campaigns do is a lot less sexy — voter databases, activism tools, Web-based interfaces for high-dollar fundraisers. How about some coverage of that?
![]()
Comments (1)
Trackbacks (2)
del.icio.us
digg it
subscribe
links for 2007-06-28
by Patrick Ruffini :: June 28th, 2007 8:25 am-
What are we doing to fix this?
-
one of the best analyses of the facebook platform by far…the genius of openness.
![]()
Comments (0)
Trackbacks (0)
del.icio.us
digg it
subscribe
links for 2007-06-27
by Patrick Ruffini :: June 27th, 2007 8:27 am-
Thompson lands Andrew Dorr. Perhaps the Cooler will come out of retirement to discuss this development?
-
embracing weakness as strength
![]()
Comments (0)
Trackbacks (0)
del.icio.us
digg it
subscribe
Flip-Flopping’s Fine By Me
by Patrick Ruffini :: June 26th, 2007 11:33 pmRecently, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking whether the flip-flopping charges that abound in ‘08 race will eventually stick. The best answer I can come up with right now is “No.”
As a jumping off point, Soren Dayton contemplates what happens when flip-flopping becomes the new normal:
Like support for comprehensive immigration reform, prior to running for President, all the major candidates were supportive of BCRA-style campaign finance reform. Indeed, Mitt Romney even went much, much farther. Now all but John McCain have backed away. And many conservatives pundocrats have demanded that he pander and flip-flop too.
So the pattern is clear. Run on some positions your whole life, then change them to win the nomination. Then what?
Is that a healthy way for a political party or a political movement to behave? What does this say about our intellectual class?
Look, we get it. John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and even Fred Thompson aren’t perfect. But if asked to choose between Romney/Thompson/Giuliani, who may have changed on some issues and McCain, who is “authentic,” my answer is always going to be any ofthese guys over McCain.
And it says something funny about the McCain campaign that the best attack line they can come up with is that their opponents once agreed with them. Attacking Fred Thompson as McCain Lite only works if people find the high-test McCain appealing.
Sure,all of them took McCainiac positions at some point or another. On some issues, they followed and McCain led. But that’s the problem isn’t it? McCain led. He led on BCRA. He led on CIR. He led the fight against the Bush tax cuts. He led the Republicans for the Kyoto treaty. All of Romney’s flip-flops don’t change the fact that McCain is responsible for the abomination that is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.Whenever McCain leads, it’s usually in the wrong direction. That’s why conservatives don’t trust him.
It’s easy to turn a blind eye if someone’s flip-flopping in my direction, but that’s not it. Rather, it’s that at some point, you’ve gotta dance with the ones that brung ya. Said another way, the positions Romney et al. are taking now, in the most important campaign of their lives, are the ones they’re stuck with — whether they like it or not.After his public conversion and being pilloried as a flip-flopper, do you seriously think that Romney can walk back his pro-life positionwithout destroying himself? Does anyone actually think that Romney would be so stupid as to advance public funding of elections after running as the enemy of BCRA? If Romney runs and manages to get elected as a conservative, why would he revert to a non-winning position?
If you look at history, how candidates run — regardless of what they believed earlier in their career — is how they govern once they win. Conservatives may feel betrayed by George W. Bush but his campaigns were stellar examples of truth-in-advertising. Remember, he got elected as a different kind of Republican who was pro-immigrant and who was more concerned about taxes than spending. How Bush governed is exactly how he ran, except maybe for the nation-building thing (and there was a pretty big change in circumstances there.)
Slippery as he was, Clinton ran as a Third Way Democrat and governed that way.Bush the Father was the mixed bag we expected him to be. Once he became pro-life, he stayed pro-life. But no one expected him to be Ronald Reagan (”kinder, gentler nation”) and he wasn’t. And what you saw was what you got in Ronaldus Maximus.
Isn’t this different than the campaign we ran against John Kerry in 2004? Well, yes, I suppose it is. But the frame against Kerry was that he was too unsteady and indecisive to win a war.Can McCain credibly make that case against the others? That Rudy Giuliani will wilt against al Qaeda because he moved on CFR? Please.
And does authenticity still matter? Yes, it does. But at some point, your basic positioning on issues has to matter too. And primary voters have a right to evaluate that.
We need to start thinking of this imperfect field not as a problem, but as an opportunity. Conservatives, these guys need you. They can’t take a single vote for granted. You should be forcing them to take positions that are more to your liking, because they won’t be able to live them down after running (and hopefully winning) on them.
Conservatives may be declaring a different kind of amnesty this election season: one for Presidential candidates for their past intemperate positions. Why not come out from the shadows, Senator McCain?
UPDATE: A source who’s analysis I trust and who is also partial to McCain points this out: Flip-flopping is more of a general election issue than a primary issue. Can Romney withstand $50 million of Hillary Clinton ads calling him a flip-flopper? (Remember how the Clinton machine shredded Bob Dole with ads in 1996.) That’s a good point. But how does that benefit McCain? If you want someone untarnished by the flip-flopper label, it would seem that Rudy and Fred are just as good if not better.
![]()
Comments (0)
Trackbacks (6)
del.icio.us
digg it
subscribe
links for 2007-06-26
by Patrick Ruffini :: June 26th, 2007 8:28 am-
Bama is right: this is ecology of Web 2.0 is very cool.
-
Explains a lot.



















