Wednesday, January 28, 2004
Now Trippi is gone. Finally, someone connected with the Internet provides the correct appraisal of the Dean rise and fall.
So what does this mean for the Dean campaign? We have been criticised of late by our supporters for not telling the news, bad as well as good. Supporters feel betrayed when they are told things are fine, and then find out otherwise when the votes come in. "We could have helped" they say in distress, "but you didn't really ask us!"
Blogging for the Presidency? Not if you want to win.
A scream, a dream and still no meme.
This is a post by David Weinberger with my response:
David: You're like Tony Soprano with the bad chicken vindaloo dreamin' of Sal "Big Pussy" Bonpensiero as a talking tile fish. And we do know what happened to Sal.
Lighten up on Kerry. My plan is to support him and Edwards--hoping he'll be VP--in the ultimate postmodern struggle to dethrone Bush. No baseball bats, no rants, just the positive solutions that the voters want to consider. I'm afraid that "Internet" candidates are expected to present a hyperbolic persona meant to garner the most hits in order to compete for attention on the Web. I think the wider (oh, what apostasy!) world which better represents the voting public seeks a subtler candidate. If Dean is a Flash animation, Kerry is a mere jpeg. (Maybe what the Dean campaign needs is a Skip Intro button.)
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
I'm on deadline, and I simply don't have the time now. But I can't understand how anyone can support Dean at this point.
I won't be watching the media churn the stories out today. There'll be an endless stream of non-revelatory talking heads whose only purpose is to fill the airtime between commercials.
Monday, January 26, 2004
While I continue to have respect for those who are considered the important figures in blogging such as Chris Lydon, Jeff Jarvis, Doc Searls and the pantheon goes on..., I found last night's broadcast to be flawed, but considering that this is their first shot, one can't be too critical. So here is what I would considered reasonable and correctable criticisms and observations about last night:
1. No one did his homework. There were very casual assertions all around with little qualitative or quantitative analysis about the effect of blogging on the political process. The total information content was negligible.
2. They didn't stick to the topic. The second hour had very little to do with politics at all except for the personal politics of the very insular, and narrow blogosphere. If you didn't have an initimate knowledge of Atrios or Andrew Sullivan, it was just like overhearing a personal argument.
3. Frank Rich's question about influence not reaching far outside the blogosphere due to its self-referential nature was completely ignored. In fact it's hard to think of one critical thought that was explored during these two hours. The argument for blogging is purposely slanted to none or all. Someone called in and said X gets it and Y doesn't. This is the prevailing orthodoxy of blogging. Dean was casually referred to as a bad "product," lest blogging be implicated in his poor showing in Iowa. This is equivalent to saying our solution is great, and if it doesn't work it's still great, and even if we lose the election, we still had a great solution. Talk about the proverbial cart before Mr. Ed.
4. It was mentioned towards the end one of the goals was to create a set of celebrities in the blogging world, suggesting that this is the business model that would provide compensation for the cognoscenti. What happened to David Reed's end-to-end meme? Why do we have an apparent need to create a new hierarchy that will further narrow the voices heard on the Net? How many have aspirations for becoming political consultants? (We've already established that WINNING the election cannot be used as the criteria for judging the utility of blogging.)
And who would be the ultimate source of the big payoffs for these celebs? Big Media.
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
- The Who
Sunday, January 25, 2004
Ed Cone prefers that nothing negative be said about this baby. It is an all-or-not construct. Whether Bush wins or loses is a binary decision. You can't relationize that fact.
A most pertinent question from Rick Heller:
"When does a blog community go sour?
"When does it get so inbred and self-referential that participants feel pressure to conform, and not burst any emerging bubbles?"
Richard Reeves, is he a blogger?
"...OBESITY IS A HUGE ISSUE"
(this links to a PDF) This is a session summary from the World Economic Forum.
"There is no question," said Tommy G. Thompson, US Secretary of Health and Human Services, "that obesity is a huge issue."
"Another cause of obesity, said Ed Mayo...is poverty."
Why does this sound like a John Waters' movie script?
Just don't go to whitehouse.com for a civics' lesson.
This is a charming list of 100 activities for teens to do "instead of it." Thank God for impersonal pronouns.
courtesy of BoingBoing.net
Dude, where's my blog?
No posts since November? You're speaking tonight on the radio about blogging, remember? Thanks to Jeff Jarvis, aka buzzmachine.com for pointing this out.
This is the radiocast I refer to below. It's probably one of the last reports we'll hear about "blogging" in mainstream media.
Let's hope that Michael Moore doesn't do for Wesley Clark (or Mel Gibson for Christianity) what blogging did for the Dean campaign.
This makes a trio from Professor Weinberger. You can tell that we're kindred spirits. I remember reading something extremely funny about VanZandt's babushka look that he posted on blogcritics.com but YOU can search for that.
And I was beginning to worry about David's weltanshauung!!!
"Giant trolls, gargantuan elephants, catapults firing heads, fierce bad guys with faces made out of cookie dough, fire-tipped battering rams, stirring music, flying dragons, all in one scene. "
Oh, it's a movie review.
"Thank goodness for Liv Tyler (or, as she's uncharitably known in our household, Mrs. Ed)." Unrelenting sarcasm like this doesn't bode well for claims of the blogosphere's interconnectedness. How about a group hug?
"The insular nature of niche groups creates a bad environment for grooming a candidate. Insider signals, secret handshakes, screams that only the kool aid drinkers can understand distance the candidate from the general public."
This is another quote from my comment on buzzmachine.com
Question: Will blogging end with a big bang (of course, with consenting adults only), or will it slowly fade away?
BTW, Ed's going to be on NPR tonight. He's probably the only REAL blogger who'll be participating.
You know that blogging is doomed when impacted ear wax competes with the election of the leader of the free world.
Considering that a well-funded, populist candidate for the presidency has been brought down by the good-intentioned bloggers and other netizens, we can now watch the dying embers of self-importance spanning this wired universe. I should explain this is a group blog, with the members signing on with the days to come. Hey, it was fun while it lasted. Let's look at what went wrong.