Hillary's (mis)use of email

From TechPresident.

This seems to be a poor way to approach email for a few reasons:

1- Many people don't have images enabled. Even if I'm not worried about the safety of the images from the Hillary campaign, it's much easier for me to go onto my next piece of mail than it is to enable them.

2- As long as they're using images, they may as well actually use them well! Although they say that a picture is worth a thousand words, a picture of words is worth no more - and in this case, less - than the words themselves. It seems that the Hillary campaign is using images instead of text for some shortcut - whose benefit is still unknown to me - rather than fully utilizing the strength of the medium.

3- You can share data more easily when it is in text form than when it is an image. This is especially important given the proliferation of such quick and informal information-disseminating venues such as blogs, Twitter and myriad instant messaging platforms. Even if you have images enabled, someone has to take the time to type out whatever information they want to share using those tools. With a text-based message, you can simply copy and paste. Simply put, information in text form has better legs than information in image form - particularly appealing/viral pictures aside.

Hillary Campaign's Response to Obama's "Monster" Comment

"I'm willing to club a baby seal to make a deal."

Does anyone else remember that scene from the Weird Al Yankovic movie, "UHF"?

In an advertisement for a sale, a crazed use car salesman has an adorable baby seal on the hood of a car. He is brandishing a baseball bat and is screaming at the camera that unless 20 people come down to his lot and buy cars within the next 15 minutes, he is going club the baby seal. Presumably to death.

This email that I received from the Hillary campaign reminds me of that:

Uploaded with plasq's Skitch!

It's hard to take any of the literature I get from the Hillary for President people seriously when the suggested response to everything is, "So you should give us more money."

When she won states, she asked for money.

When she lost states, she asked for money.

And now, when the other guy says something mean about here, she's asking for money.

I am not ignorant of the importance of money to political campaigns, I just think that the people whose support she is counting on are smart enough to know that different actions ought elicit different responses. There are more logical ways for people to respond on Hillary's behalf like writing letters, making phone calls, etc. to the Obama campaign, both tying up valuable resources and letting Obama know the extent of their ire.

Perhaps Hillary supporters or the Hillary campaign itself could make a YouTube video spoofing Michael Jackson's Thriller or something around the song "Monster Mash." That would be an appropriate and proportionate response.

I guess it's not so much that the campaign is asking for money, it's that the request is couched in the inaccurate and I think at least marginally demeaning - to the intelligence of anyone who received the solicitation - idea that donating money will prevent it from happening again in this election or future elections.

Hillary's people should just say that those sorts of ad hominem attacks ought make us - the potential donors - so angry that we should donate money to demonstrate our outrage.

I think that would be a more honest, compelling and ultimately successful request.

Study on Partiality of Political Coverage

From TalkLeft

I was surprised to read the results of this study:

Uploaded with Skitch!

Uploaded with Skitch!

First off, I think that it's only to be expected that Hillary is the focus of much of the political punditry. She has been campaigning as the political frontrunner for months and continues to do so in spite of her statistically tenuous claim to that distinction.

I was also struck by the lack of explanation into the methodology of the study. What is "scientific content analysis" and how can it determine what constitutes positive and negative coverage? If a member of the media says "critics believe ____" in some cases, that person is merely couching their own views in the amorphous third party of "critics" or the even more ephemeral, "some people." In other cases, the person is using the construct of "critics" or "some people" to raise a legitimate point and to attempt to further explore or explain that candidates point of view.

How does the scientific analysis determine which is which?