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.
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Friday, March 7, 2008
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:
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.
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:
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.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
The Straight Talk Express Runs Both Ways
From Techpresident
Approximately 50 comments were posted on Hillary, Obama, and McCain's blog and the only ones that were allowed to remain visible were those posted on McCain's.
I like that.
This is exactly what I was talking about earlier in terms of conversation and the importance of reciprocity. Social media is rewarded for its authenticity, and censoring all but positive feedback results in something that is blatantly inauthentic.
Not only does that silence important voices of dissent, but it serves to devalue the content that is left on the site - both in terms of posted content by the blogger(s) as well as the comments that have obviously been vetted and found to be satisfactory.
The mindset behind this censorship indicates one of two things:
1) That the people censoring comments think very poorly of their audience. Their censorship suggests that they believe that the people are unable to critically evaluate and synthesize information in order to form an opinion. Instead, they must be force fed meticulously crafted and vetted content without deviation.
Or
2) That the censors are so insecure with regards to their candidate's stances on issues that they can't afford to let people comment freely.
Either way, why would someone want to vote for that candidate?
Approximately 50 comments were posted on Hillary, Obama, and McCain's blog and the only ones that were allowed to remain visible were those posted on McCain's.
I like that.
This is exactly what I was talking about earlier in terms of conversation and the importance of reciprocity. Social media is rewarded for its authenticity, and censoring all but positive feedback results in something that is blatantly inauthentic.
Not only does that silence important voices of dissent, but it serves to devalue the content that is left on the site - both in terms of posted content by the blogger(s) as well as the comments that have obviously been vetted and found to be satisfactory.
The mindset behind this censorship indicates one of two things:
1) That the people censoring comments think very poorly of their audience. Their censorship suggests that they believe that the people are unable to critically evaluate and synthesize information in order to form an opinion. Instead, they must be force fed meticulously crafted and vetted content without deviation.
Or
2) That the censors are so insecure with regards to their candidate's stances on issues that they can't afford to let people comment freely.
Either way, why would someone want to vote for that candidate?
Friday, January 25, 2008
Political Campaigning - Bringing Families Together (and money)
Because Hillary Clinton was one of the most powerful First Ladies in recent political memory, it shouldn't come as a surprise that Bill has been pushing the envelope of spousal advocacy for his wife's presidential run.
I think that President Clinton would probably be supporting Obama if he didn't have such an obviously vested interest in Senator Clinton's campaign and while it's obvious why he is exerting his massive influence in her favor, I can't help but think that his behavior is somewhat ignominious for who should be such a distinguished member of the Democratic Party. While it is fine - and expected - of him to endorse a candidate, I do not think that he should be out shilling for one as tirelessly as he is for his wife.
As much as I like Bill Clinton and wish that he could run again - damn you, 22nd Amendment! - I do not think that a Hillary presidency will be tantamount to a Bill presidency. Voters need to realize this fact and that - matrimonial pacts aside - Bill might very well support another democratic candidate.
That was a lengthy digression...
I was very surprised to find out that the families of candidates are sometimes reimbursed for their "services."
From PurpleMinded.com
"Records show that Joe Lieberman’s presidential campaign paid his wife, Hadassah, at least $22,000; his son Matthew received about $34,000 and his daughter Rebecca about $36,000. The Bush-Cheney re-election campaign paid Vice President Dick Cheney’s daughter Mary about $81,000."
Is that even legal use of campaign monies? If so, what would/do political contributors think about their donations being used to line the pockets of the families of their chosen candidates?
I think that President Clinton would probably be supporting Obama if he didn't have such an obviously vested interest in Senator Clinton's campaign and while it's obvious why he is exerting his massive influence in her favor, I can't help but think that his behavior is somewhat ignominious for who should be such a distinguished member of the Democratic Party. While it is fine - and expected - of him to endorse a candidate, I do not think that he should be out shilling for one as tirelessly as he is for his wife.
As much as I like Bill Clinton and wish that he could run again - damn you, 22nd Amendment! - I do not think that a Hillary presidency will be tantamount to a Bill presidency. Voters need to realize this fact and that - matrimonial pacts aside - Bill might very well support another democratic candidate.
That was a lengthy digression...
I was very surprised to find out that the families of candidates are sometimes reimbursed for their "services."
From PurpleMinded.com
"Records show that Joe Lieberman’s presidential campaign paid his wife, Hadassah, at least $22,000; his son Matthew received about $34,000 and his daughter Rebecca about $36,000. The Bush-Cheney re-election campaign paid Vice President Dick Cheney’s daughter Mary about $81,000."
Is that even legal use of campaign monies? If so, what would/do political contributors think about their donations being used to line the pockets of the families of their chosen candidates?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)