Dear Jay Rosen,

I find your ideas fascinating, but since I haven't gotten an email back from you I'm going to apply your arguments to the Bobby Jindal campaign:

Jay Rosen, a writer for the MediaShift Idea Lab has been writing about the shifting presence of the media for years. The excerpt below is from an essay written in 2003, but I think it's particularly relevant for our discussion on the changing face of The Atlantic:

"We need to keep the press from being absorbed into The Media. This means keeping the word press, which is antiquated. But included under its modern umbrella should be all who do the serious work in journalism, regardless of what technology they use. The people who will invent the next press in America--and who are doing it now online--continue an experiment at least 250 years old. It has a powerful social history and political legend attached."

In other words, bloggers and internet journalists (citizen and professional alike) aren't reinventing the wheel; they're continuing the hallowed tradition of the free press. In general, blogs are representations of "public opinion." Normal people who otherwise wouldn't have their voices heard can communicate with millions via the internet. So, how does this change campaigning, especially for Bobby Jindal and The Atlantic? Exploring political blogs can give insight into the stories and people that the public wants to see covered. Are a lot of bloggers talking about Olympia Snow? Mike Huckabee? Bobby Jindal? Well, then The Atlantic should cover those people, or a particular story associated with them. The beginnings of a grassroots campaign for Sarah Palin 2012 are already solidifying. The Atlantic has to keep its ear to the ground as other potential players come to the fore.

Within the next year, I imagine that bloggers will start to seriously vie for their chosen candidates, much like what happened during '06 and '07. The Atlantic must keep these grassroots bloggers abreast, perhaps doing an interview with some of the larger names in the near future. The 2012 election is too far away to start naming potential candidates without the guise of interviewing a blogger, rather than a candidate. No one wants to see a candidate look too eager too early. The tricky part of the next year and a half is getting people interested without over exposing anyone. A segment every other month on a different blogger who endorses a different candidate would be a good way to give the public a heads up and a taste of things to come.

Bobby Jindal and Barack Obama: The comparions begin! (And, probably won't end)

Just the other day, the Washington Post had an interesting article that declared "Jindal May Prove To be Republicans' Version of Obama." The article states,

Already, a fierce fight is looming between him and other Republicans -- former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who arrived in Iowa a couple of days before him, and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who is said to be coming at some point -- for the hearts of social conservatives.

Social conservatism appears to be the new "it" thing for Iowa Republicans, probably because they already view Obama as too liberal. Jindal fits into this mold well. He has very conservative policies, and, much like Palin and Huckabee, checks every box on the right.

What can Jindal do now? It's clear that Huckabee and Palin see themselves at the future of Washington Republicanism, but Jindal is the Governor of a state that has been in turmoil since 2005. For now, Jindal appears to be focused on Louisiana, instead of a White House bid. This seems like the best approach, but that doesn't mean that someone (meaning me) from The Atlantic shouldn't keep an eye on him, just in case he does something of note. It's good to highlight the achievements and disappointments of contenders, even if they haven't officially stated that they're contenders yet.

Barack Obama had a lot of early buzz, and because of it, most of the potentially damaging stories were aired out during the early stages of the campaign. The longer one is in the public eye, the longer they're scrutinized, but sometimes that can be beneficial. Getting to say your piece early is helpful in politics and Jindal is in on the ground floor.

Bobby Jindal

Bobby Jindal - though I may not agree with most of his policies, I think he's an impressive figure. Look at his Wiki Profile:

"Following high school, Jindal attended Brown University, graduating with honors in biology and public policy.^[7] Although he had thought of a career in medicine or law and was accepted by Harvard Medical School and Yale Law School, he chose to pursue a political career. He received a master's degree in political science from New College, Oxford, as a Rhodes Scholar."

So, how does one parlay these impressive credentials into an impressive campaign? Well, first of all, he's only 37, so he has a potentially long political career in front of him. Also, this makes him young enough to be cool, especially to young conservative voters who feel disenfranchised from Obama's politics. Instead of comparing Jindal to Obama because they were both men of color, why not showcase Jindal's youth to younger conservative or Christian voters? The Democrats don't have the "cool" market cornered. Just ask Mike Huckabee:



Few things are cooler than joking around with Chuck Norris. "Principled authentic conservative"? Bobby Jindal fits into that mold! Celebrity endorsements, Daily Show or Colbert Report appearances, and early buzz are all things that could rocket Bobby Jindal to the White House.

But, how can The Atlantic get in on the ground floor? Interviewing Louisiana natives about Jindal would be a start. Researching his policies, his changes as governor, or even his family history would be a good segment. However, I think it's too early to jump aboard the Jindal train quite yet. Instead of focusing on a White House bid, focusing on "The New Head of the Republican Party" seems more prudent. People are tired of hearing about campaigning.

After a few months of an Obama presidency, however, Jindal and the other 2012 contenders are fair game.

WSJ: Obama's National-Security Team Set

Part of why I love the WSJ print edition are the fantastic stippled hedcuts. Sometimes, they say more than the article can. Take a look at the three George W. Bush portraits below:


In just a year and a half, Bush seems to have aged 10 years. (As an aside, Kevin Sprouls is the artist who pioneered this style in the WSJ and if you have any interest in art, I recommend browsing around his site.)

The Wall Street Journal online is one of the best designed websites for a major news outlet. The entire thing is packed full of interactive graphs and graphics, user-friendly tabs, and an extensive back catalog. However, I think that the stories lose a bit of their flair without the requisite portraits. Take this story for example. Obama National-Security Team Set is the same sort of article that you'd see in the print WSJ, but the actual photographs of people and events add something different to the story. I'm not sure if I like it as much as the stylized portraits above.

Twitter: John McCain and Barack Obama

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have Twitter pages, but the difference is in the numbers:

McCain:

5,605 Following

4,840 Followers

25 Updates

Obama:

143,629 Following

138,979 Followers

263 Updates

So, roughly 137,000 more people follow Barack Obama. Ok, that's understandable. Younger generation and all that. But, let's take a look at the content of their pages. Let's take a peek at some highlights from John McCain:

Girded Loins at NBC: Joe Biden's commented on Sunday that Barack Obama's election as President would, .. http://tinyurl.com/6nb2fk 10:30 AM Oct 21st from twitterfeed
Biden: 'Gird Your Loins' for International Crisis: Joe Biden tells it like it is: "Mark my words,.. http://tinyurl.com/6yfuej

Obama Surrogate Unable To Cite One Obama Bipartisan Accomplishment: http://tinyurl.com/3q7hck 6:00 PM Oct 15th from twitterfeed
STATEMENT ON ACORN'S LETTER: ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis rel.. http://tinyurl.com/4wxy97 9:00 AM Oct 14th from twitterfeed
Obama and ACORN: Just one week ago, the Obama campaign declared that 'Barack Obama never organized wit.. http://tinyurl.com/4xlm4z 3:30 PM Oct 11th from twitterfeed

Above are 5 Twitter posts out of 25, or 20% of McCain's content. Note that not one of the above posts are about John McCain. Instead, they're links to negative articles about Barack Obama. In other words, his posts are small snippets of headlines, not about how wonderful John McCain is, but about how frightening and bad for America his opponent is.

Perhaps this is because surrogate Twitter-McCain (because he can't use a computer) only posted from September 19th through October 24th. Not really enough time to become familiar with the medium, but enough time to say more positive things about John McCain himself, no?

Now, let's take a look at Obama's page. From the start, it's aesthetically more sedate, forgoing the bunting-esque American flags on the McCain page. Additionally, the content is related to Obama. Links to Obama speeches, articles about Obama policy, and even a reminder to vote. Instead of fear-mongering anti-McCain rhetoric, Obama's page is about Obama. Interesting. Perhaps this is the "Change we can believe in."

Twitter: Anyone else?

So, I don't actually have any friends whom I know personally on Twitter, and I'm not too adept at finding people from our class...

Does anyone else have a Twitter name? I'd really like to see how "following" works.

My Twitter name is Carolinemooney and I'd love a friend or two!

Twitter: Short and Punchy

As I explore Twitter, I'm reminded of how we talked about how candidates were utilizing the internet to build a youth base. The youth vote has been talked about for years, but this election seems to be a turning point. Obama reached out to younger voters and let them know that he's different and has the best interest of the younger generation in mind.

So, how does a candidate reach out to the young? Well, it helps to be dramatically younger than your opponent, but one has to appear to be "of" or at least "connected to" the younger generation. Take Obama's Facebook page, for example. As I type this, he has over 3.2 million supporters, or friends, in Facebook lingo. 3.2 million people who can log onto Facebook every day and "Get exclusive content and interact with Barack Obama right from Facebook," according to the Google summary.

But how did he do it and how did it help? He (or his team) did it by employing Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes. And, it doesn't hurt that he (or his team) filled out the Detailed Info:

Detailed Info

Website:	http://www.facebook.com/pages/Students-f... http://www.myspace.com/barackobama http://www.facebook.com/pages/Michelle-O...
Gender:	Male
Relationship Status:	Married to Michelle Obama
Birthday:	August 4, 1961
Religious Views:	Christian
Interests:	Basketball, writing, spending time w/ kids
Favorite Music:	Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Bob Dylan, Stevie Wonder, Johann Sebastian Bach (cello suites), and The Fugees
Favorite Movies:	Casablanca, Godfather I & II, Lawrence of Arabia and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Favorite Books:	Song of Solomon (Toni Morrison), Moby Dick, Shakespeare's Tragedies, Parting the Waters, Gilead (Robinson), Self-Reliance (Emerson), The Bible, Lincoln's Collected Writings
Favorite TV Shows:	Sportscenter
Favorite Quotations:	"The Arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." (MLK)

How much more short and punchy, yet personal can you get? His favorite books, his favorite movies. This page shows a man who is able to comfortably cultivate intimacy through a medium that the younger generation actually uses.

How many twenty-somethings read Newsweek or Time every week? How many twenty-somethings look at Facebook every day? I can guarantee that the numbers for the latter are exponentially higher.

The next Presidential candidate will have to be able to comfortably use media much as Facebook or Twitter to communicate with younger voters. As more young people get their news from online sources, the internet will become the newest battleground state, and, arguably, the most important.

Looking Forward: Possible 2012 nominees

Who will be the Republican nominee in 2012?

Well, odds are looking good for Mitt Romney according to Intrade. Interestingly, on the same page, Intrade has 3:1 odds for a Democratic winner in 2012. The Mitt Romney buzz is on the people's lips already, as well as the internet.

With a bit of searching, I came upon this bizarre pro-Mitt (?) website. I'm enchanted with entires such as this:

The topic:

How should Mitt keep himself occupied over the next three years?

For sake of argument, take as a given that winning the Presidency in 2012 is the goal.

A non-exhaustive list of possibilities to consider:

• Mend fences with the older gentleman who will likely win the nomination, in hopes of a VP nod, and a one-term Presidency.
• Take a cabinet position (e.g. Treasury, Commerce, etc.).
  
• Take over as Chairman of the RNC (as suggested by Newt on Fox News last night).
• Grow a beard, get fat, lecture at Harvard (aka "the Gore Plan")
  
• Play with the grandkids
  
• Do what he does best - fix broken companies and make a pile of money.

Though said tongue in cheek, some of those ideas aren't half bad. Plus, Romney was the Republican governor of oh-so-liberal Massachusetts for four years. That has to give him some cred with Democrats, or at least centrist Republicans.

Though the numbers are close, and the primaries are far away, Presidential hopefuls have been campaining earlier and earlier over the last few decades. Obama announced his candidacy about a year and a half before. Senator Clinton announced hers on January 20th, 2007, exactly two years before President Elect Obama will be sworn in. Ostensibly, it's not too abstract to discuss potential Presidential nominees, but one must remember two things:

1) A single day or a single scandal can change a politician's entire career. Trent Lott is a perfect example of this maxim in action.

2) The Republican party doesn't have a defined path...yet. Over the next few years, the party could turn entirely to the right and follow the Huckabee/Palin path (wouldn't that be quite the ticket?), or the party could do a 180 and become more socially centrist and fiscally conservative. At this point, the party appears to be up for grabs, but the prediction of Mitt Romney, though not overwhelming, is an interesting one. He won 11 states and caucuses, roughly 20%, which isn't too low of a number considering the Republicans had a cast of thousands for potential nominees.

This article from The Atlantic does a nice job of exploring some other potential candidates who may, someday, represent the Republican Party. Bobby Jindal and Tim Pawlenty are two candidates whom I could easily see in the limelight with four more years of experience. But again, all of these predictions are, essentially, moot if the Republican Party drastically changes direction.

But, where does all of this talk leave our good friend Sarah Palin? Luckily, the buzz over her potential 2012 bid seems to have died down compared to the two weeks after the election when there was story, after story, after story about Gov. Palin potentially becoming President Palin. Though it's entirely too early to count her in or rule her out, I will leave the reader with this sign, lovingly hand-painted for an anti-Palin rally held in Alaska earlier this year.

Happy Thanksgiving!

President Bush pardons his last turkey.

Looking Forward: Retrospectives

The above image serves as a pictorial representation of Bush's final days in office, as he prepares to leave office with a higher disapproval rating than any recent President, including Nixon.

Even though President Bush is STILL the President for another 7 weeks or so there recently has been a proliferation of retrospectives. Or, colloquially, Americans are asking, "How the hell did we get into this mess?"

John Hallmann wrote an interesting piece for the Huffington Post that details several unfortunate key point of the Bush Administration.

Evidently, the Bush Administration is revising its own history, as it were. As the clock winds down, what can be said for the past? Quite a bit, but it depends on who's saying it, and for what purpose.

ETA: The first thing that pops up for the Google suggested searches when you type in "President" with a space at the end is "President Obama." America is looking forward.

Karma

Ann Coulter's jaw was wired shut.

Twitter: First reactions

So, Twitter.

I had heard of it, but never really put much thought into it. This morning, I decided to explore the Twitter webpage and found it rather...cryptic. The Welcome page has this to say:

Twitter is a service for friends, family, and co–workers to communicate and stay connected through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?

What am I doing? Well, currently I'm reading the Twitter page, but beyond that I have to wonder why anyone would care. My first reaction was that Twitter encapsulates the faux closeness that the internet provides, but then I got to thinking. What is the purpose of Twitter? 140 characters isn't long, so brief updates are the norm. Anything from, "I feel sick" to "I watched FoxNews for 6 hours and learned a lot about Obama's new economic team." Rather than closeness, Twitter acts as a platform for conversations that could be held outside of the Twitter forum. Much like a blog post lends itself to comments, Twitter starts conversations and allows people to glean information about someone else's life through conversational snippets.

The media cloud of blogs, comments on stories, and instant information gives a voice to those who may have felt disenfranchised by popular media. Twitter could possibly act as a conduit for those who like to stay instantly connected.

Conversely, Twitter reminded me of something that happened just the other day. My friend and I were Googling our names and the first thing that popped up for me was MY Facebook page. Caroline Mooney, Hartford CT. There I was. It made me feel like I was on the Truman Show, which, evidently, is a contemporary phenomenon fueled by Facebook newsfeeds and Google searches.

So, how will the media react to sites like Twitter if their popularity continues to grow, or even grows exponentially? What will the internet look like in 2012? Twitter, much like the Barack Obama text messages allows anyone you "follow" to immediately tell you whatever they think is important. If the Obama administration, MSNBC, FoxNews, or another person, governmental body, or media outlet got a Twitter page, much like the Obama Facebook page, it would allow them to enter your home and your daily life as seamlessly as a new friend does. The result is one we've talked about often in regards to blogs: short bits of information that feed into how the Google Generation looks for news. Maybe some would take the time to research the story, but imagine if FoxNews twittered (is that a verb?) headlines their followers:

"Obama's pastor gives vitriolic anti-American sermon."

"Obama's secret ties to Kenyan government."

"Obama uses cabinet appointments to further his liberal agenda."

Perhaps I'm paranoid, but I don't want anyone to know what I'm doing all the time, nor do I want to know what anyone else is doing all the time, nor every headline that comes across as a news alert. News organizations could certainly utilize Twitter to their great advantage. It seems like an interesting tool. And now, after Obama and McCain's webpage face-off, the internet will probably become an important tool to potentially reach the ever-apathetic youth voter. Maybe sites like Twitter will win the next election for whomever is savvy enough to get in on the ground floor.

Barack Obama: Choosing Centrists for Cabinet

The Obama cabinet is shaping up to be more centrist than some on the right thought. There were fears that Obama would choose only exceedingly liberal politicians to help him govern, but those fears have been assuaged with he announcement of Obama's economic team. But, how can members of the conservative media tell the story without giving Obama credit for using the cabinet to balance out Republican and Democratic viewpoints? Ah! Claim that the left has "buyer's remorse" and that the far left is angered by these centrists because they "don't think exactly as we do!"

Now, contrast the above story to this one from the New York Times. Instead of complaining about "liberal feelings" with no evidence, the Times states the choices reasonably and in a way that engages the reader. The article lends itself to discussion, rather than a screaming match.

Just for a further comparison, I found this gem of an article from NewsBusters on the same bit of video and the same story. For kicks, read the comments at the bottom. This is my personal favorite:

Let's have a full accounting of coke-head Obama's life. Still don't know anything about him.

College records. Where are they? Why won't he release them and his thesis?

State Senate records. Where are they?

Medical records. Are you hiding some physical or mental defect? Doesn't the country have a right to know?

Passport. Why don't you want people to see where you have been? Wouldn't that go a long way to bolster you're Foreign Affairs experiance?

Application to Illionois Bar. Did you mention your drug use on it? Or are you trying to cover up that you did not fully disclose everything about you.

Riddled with spelling errors and bizarre assumptions, posts like this make me realize that the internet gives everyone, regardless of ANYTHING except access to a computer, the right to be heard by anonymous millions.

In response to this Nate Silver post and this Atlantic article:

It struck me that a greater proportion of conservative blogs have the same air of paranoia about Obama, his history, his religion, and even his (presumed) cabinet appointment. Very few of these issues are looked at objectively and often positions are given without supporting evidence. When was the last time you saw a conservative blog engage in lively, spirited debate with the other side? (Note: debate in this case means a reasoned argument supported by evidence, not talking over the opponent.)

Could it come from years of conservative talk radio, which is full of personalities like this?

His eyes, which off-air are usually flat and unhappy, are alight now with passionate conviction.[...] As is SOP in political talk radio, the emotions most readily accessed are anger, outrage, indignation, fear, despair, disgust, contempt, and a certain kind of apocalyptic glee, all of which the Nick Berg thing's got in spades. [who is in turn able] to enjoy the authority and influence of journalism without the stodgy constraints of fairness, objectivity, and responsibility that make trying to tell the truth such a drag for everyone involved.

However, as with every generalization, there are exceptions to the rule. Take, for example, this fantastic article by Byron York from the DC Examiner.
One of the most interesting byproducts of this phenomenon is that now seemingly everything is both fair gain and news. Michelle Maklin is a big proponent of this sort of news

Barack Obama: Rumors

Did Obama buy the vote? Uninformed Obama voters? You bet!



There are uninformed voters everywhere. Single issue voters, clever editing, whatever you want to call it, this little video makes me think of a Jay Walking segment.

"Yes you can...own a piece of history"

The Obama Commemorative plates are out! Say hello to your Christmas present, everybody!

Newsweek: "Is Obama the Antichrist?"

No, seriously. Lisa Miller from Newsweek interviewed people for whom this is an actual possibility.

This is one of the most puzzling articles I've ever seen from a publication as reputable as Newsweek. I understand that newspapers and magazines should stock their pages with all the news that's fit to print, but this just seems incendiary and a bit strange. For people religious enough to believe in a physical Antichrist, the article reaffirms their points, and for those who think that's a bit (or exceedingly) wacky, it comes off as entirely too serious. I would have like to read an article that outlined how Millennialist or Evangelical Christians feel about Obama's win. However, Miller didn't write with that sort of finesse. For example,

The people who believe Obama is the Antichrist are perhaps jumping to conclusions, but they're not nuts: "They are expressing a concern and a fear that is widely shared," Staver says.

They're not nuts? Well, "nuts" is a little strong, but couldn't Miller have written that entire thought in the voice of Staver? Her article strikes me as rather tactless but I can't tell if my reading of the article is marred because of the horrible title.

Certianly, the Rapture has been big business lately. With the advent (get it?) and popularity of books that discuss Evangelical themes, such as the Left Behind series, more and more Americans are discussing Rapturous happenings unabashedly, and, more importantly unironically.

Evidently, the authors of the Left Behind series do not think that Obama is the Antichrist, so that's one point for sanity.

ETA: Whenever I hear about the Apocalypse, I always think of Durer.

The "lighter" side of racism

Check out this neat new Christmas Decoration from the right wing Christian group, the American Family Association:
Remind you of anything?

I think this fits in nicely with out discussion of those whom we lovingly labeled "scary, crazy people." It's one thing for racists to burn crosses under cover of darkness and sheet, but it's another to purchase a product that lets everyone who drives by your house know that you subscribe to this set of values. I'm not sure if an Obama Presidency will increase the number of racist attacks or tirades. But, sequestered in Connecticut, I don't think I'll be able to tell unless the MSM lets me know that something is awry.

A blogger got a screen capture of the entire listing here.

Is Bill Clinton a liability?

Barack Obama has been considering Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, but how much of a liability is the Clinton Foundation? Former President Clinton has been "reluctant to disclose the donors," according to Philip Rucker of the Washington Post. Rucker goes on to say,


"It's a little bit unclear what happened there, but there are some reports that he's helped -- that Bill Clinton helped facilitate a deal there in uranium in Kazakhstan, and in turn, there was a donation to the foundation."

Clinton has offered to disclose future donors and "'major' past contributors -- a term that has yet to be defined."

The possible offer of a cabinet position for Hillary Clinton is certainly an interesting one, and one that I am having trouble with for two reasons, in addition to Bill's charity posing a conflict of interest.

1) Hillary Clinton has a big personality is very ambitious. There's no way that Clinton would like being subordinate to Obama and, if anything were to go wrong in the Obama administration, she would be jumping off the ship as fast as possible to preserve a future bid for the White House. I think that it would behoove Senator Clinton to stay in the Senate and push for Universal Healthcare and Pre-K, and other programs she was touting during the primaries. Rushing off from her Senate seat might seem disingenuous and give creedance to those carpetbagging allegations launched against her a few years back. She has plenty of time to season and mature as a politician, and, with more experience, could be an excellent President. She's in a position to run for President in 8 years with more experience than many other female candidates (ex: Sarah Palin) and the blessing of name recognition.

2) Bill Clinton hasn't seemed as calm, cool, and collected as usual for the last few years and, both during and after the campaign, he was rather unfair to Obama. The Clinton's played dirty pool during the campaign. They (presumably they were behind those "anonymous" leaks) lobbed every single allegation that they could against President Elect Obama, but Hillary still lost, perhaps due to disorganization within her own campaign. Plus, if Senator Clinton did take the Cabinet position, Bill Clinton's personal relationships with world leaders, if not his charity, could pose a conflict of interest. There's no way to know what Bill Clinton has said to some of the most powerful people in the world, whom he counts as friends. Barack Obama's presidency is not the Clinton Administration Part III. Obama will have his own agenda and this could cause points of contention between Bill's dealings and the official stance from the administration.

Hillary and Bill Clinton still seem surprised by Hillary's loss to Obama, and, not only are they not over it, I would bet that they're planning a run in 2016, if not sooner.

Merging of Internet and Cable News

As I type, Wolf Blitzer has a feature entitled Senator Clinton as Secretary of State and Where Sarah Palin Goes From Here. These are interesting issues, but the most interesting part is who he has on the program. Both Hilary Rosen from the Huffington Post and Terry Jeffery from cnsnews.com are on and talking about the future of both parties and what spaces, if any, are open for women. Wolf Blitzer shows his (and cable news') relevance with these two representatives from widely-known internet news outlets.

As the Era of Obama dawns, will there be continued collaboration between internet, print, and television news sources? There's no way to tell for sure, but it'll be interesting to look out for.