Obama Launches Website, Then Launches Candidacy

February 10, 2007 11:43 am by Marianne Richmond in News & Politics

At midnight, Barack Obama's new website went up with the headline " Obama Presidential

Announcement Today-Springfield, Illinois. Photos and Videos Coming Soon." And so with that, Obama not only became an official candidate, he also became the host of his own social network. His site has all the features for peer to peer interaction as well as the one important one for a campaign, fundraising; but even this has a social network feel: the people centric Become a fundraiser versus the more traditional, Contribute or candidate centric Hillraisers.

The Biving's Report declares that Obama's site is the first to achieve the right balance of peer-to-peer campaign elements, "It achieves the right balance between McCain's "raise money for me or go away" approach and the chaos of Edward's blog network." I would agree that it is appears a bit more slick than the Edward's site, but would stop way short of describing the Edward's site as chaotic.

 Edward's was the pioneer in social media campaigning and is participating at a level that at least for now has more depth than the other candidate's. And then again MySpace defines chaos.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Powered by Qumana

More like this

Tags

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with Connect

Social media whiz

Virginia DeBolt February 10, 2007 - 12:53pm

I thought when I looked at Bill Richardson's site that he had covered the bases for social media, but Obama has really got it going. He provides a way for you to find like-minded people in your area, he lets you write a blog on his site, he's got facebook, partybuilder, YouTube and Flickr links. And another interesting thing he's doing is inviting YOU to plan events, YOU to become a fundraiser. If you can run a election with social media, you can change the world with social media.

http://www.webteacher.ws/
http://first50.wordpress.com/

 

I think

heivilinj February 12, 2007 - 9:44am

That "like minded" people feature is certainly valuable but I fear that if we band together in little knots of people with the same ideology and viewpoints, the country will get polarized even further.

I can't recall where I read or heard it, but recently I saw something which opined that the term "compromise" had changed meanings within the last few years (perhaps it was an NPR piece). Whereas before it meant working together with people who had different positions on issues to achieve some outcome, now it means giving up your principles in order to gain something personally.

So where do the democratic candidates stand on the idea of compromise?

Jim Heivilin

 

Depends on your definition of compromise?

Marianne Richmond February 12, 2007 - 1:32pm

Jim,

You have articulated an interesting perspective in looking at the social network/community concept of shared interests...the downside.

Unfortunately, I think the labels, "Republican" or "Democrat" already serves to suggest that if you are one or the other you have a litany of defining beliefs; Republicans are pro-life and Democrats are pro-choice for instance.

I think the polarization kind of starts right there in politics...and if you look at the politicians themselves, they seem to be more than willing to compromise a personal belief to fit under the party umbrella...Giuliani for instance comes to mind.

Marianne

Marianne Richmond
resonancepartnership

 
BlogHer ConnectionsBlogHer Connections

What are Special Offers?

ConferencesConferences

Upcoming Events

BlogHer Food '10

October 8-9, 2010

San Francisco, CA


BlogHer '11
August 5-6, 2011
San Diego, CA
Register Now!

Sponsor Promotions

$100 Question$100 Question

What is the biggest blessing motherhood brings you? Tell us in the comments for a chance to win $100.

Don't Miss ...Don't Miss ...

Back to School
Must Read Moms