When the television was first gaining widespread use, government elections saw a major change in how voters were affected. It suddenly became important to be able to speak well and look well in the media. We're used to that today, of course, but the downpour of user-generated content seen since the last presidential election is changing the face of voter perception yet again. The popularity of YouTube content and blog site information, neither of which is held to the same rules as direct media campaign advertising, changes the way messages about public figures are received by the voting public. Will the candidates be able to use the new technology to their advantage?
Will it make a difference to intelligent voters who are unswayed by rhetoric and sound bytes, and who look for meaningful answers to important questions facing the nation? Not really.
However, outside of those three people, I can see where it will have a lot of impact.
YouTube is going all out leading up to 2008 election
A story on YouTube's political channel as an example of how viral videos will play a part in the next Presidential campaign: »news.yahoo.com/s/ap/2007 ··· videos_3
It will have some but not as much as could be. If it was a balanced vote it would have a big impact. Since the republicans are so unpopular with a failed war and passing dollars to their buddies with no bid contracts, the democrats won't need much help to win this thing.
BTW I am not a fan of either party and this is not meant as a political statement
No he wasn't a great mayor. On 9/10/2001, Rudy Guiliani was going down as one of the most hated mayors in the history of NYC. His legacy was saved by 9/11/2001.
Horrific race relations, dictatorial governing style, personal scandal after personal scandal (you thought Bill Clinton in the 90s was bad? Guiliani vs his ex-wife, played out in the media, was worse), you name it. The man was just.. ugh. If people think Bush is secretive and power hungry, they haven't seen Rudy.
Out of the people you've listed, the only one I'd feel good about voting for would be Obama. Newt is a joke. McCain is just too damn old. Rudy, gag me. Thompson I don't know much about. I'd be interested in what his policy positions are.
Hillary, sigh. I'd really rather have someone else. Edwards doesn't really excite me all that much right now. But that could change. Who knows.
said by Natoma6 Out of the people you've listed, the only one I'd feel good about voting for would be Obama. [/bquote :Rico, Suave! That's about all Obama has. He's a smooth talker and just so happens to be young and "handsome" (I guess?).
Why do you "feel good" about voting for Obama? Because he hasn't said anything to piss you off? News flash: the guy hasn't taken a firm stance on ANYTHING. What has he accomplished in his 2 years in the US Senate? How many bills has he sponsored? Most importantly: what are his qualifications?
Are two years in the US Senate and a couple of terms in the Illinois Senate (where he had a nasty habit of voting "present" on controversial bills) enough experience to qualify someone for the Presidency?
Obama is like a windsock: hollow and flapping in whatever direction the wind happens to be blowing.
Obama seems to be the moral compass for many people these days: he condemns Imus, though he has no problem hanging out with Ludacris. No double standard, right??
The Illinois GOP gave away the 2004 senatorial election. For a perspective on that, you can check out: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il ··· on,_2004 , though it's not the most eloquent description of a bungled campaign by Jack Ryan and the Illinois GOP.
The only thing that sounds worse than "Obama '08" is "Hillary '08".
Really? Did you happen to live in NYC while he was mayor? I did and it was not pretty enough to call him a great mayor, no matter how many magazine covers he was on in regards to holding NYC together during 9/11 (which he didn't do any more than you would have expected from someone during 9/11).
what about the governor of new mexico, bill richardson? I think he is very well qualified to be the next president. but sadly he won't get as much media coverage as other dems...