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/

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

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