slamboard

Even though I am not an American, I followed the Democratic primary quite closely. I was intrigued by the character and the behavior of the front runners. I was especially interested in observing how they both utilized new media like YouTube. If the contest had been about YouTube popularity, Obama would have won much sooner and with a huge margin. That difference didn’t interest me that much because it was a simple matter of demographics.

I was fascinated by the evolution of comment moderation. I feel that Team Obama had a edge with that. Both sides moderated comments on the majority of videos, with a few exceptions.

Figuring out a comment moderation policy based on the ones that get approved is quite an exercise in conjecture. Based on my observations, the moderators at HillaryClintondotcom generally only allowed positive commentary while their counterparts at BarrackObamadotcom tended to approve comments that created the appearance of an open discussion. At first, I thought they should allow comments to appear without prior approval, but I changed my mind when I looked at the level of discussion elsewhere on YouTube. I am still frustrated because it seems like the approval process on an individual video is abandoned once it is a few days old.

Hillary Clinton at this point only has six videos that have more than 100 comments. A dozen Obama videos have more than 1000 comments each. ‘A More Perfect Union’ has nearly 10,000 comments.

Now that Obama has shifted focus to the general election, it appears that there has also been a slight shift in comment moderation policy. The folks with their fingers on the approval buttons seem to be more willing to approve moronic and vicious comments because now they come predominantly from Republicans and they are just making themselves look bad.

To save my readers some time, here is an example of an critical comment that was approved by Barack Obama’s official YouTube channel:

Shame on you, Barack Obama! You just destroyed the only hope of restraining already obscene Presidential campaign costs. You’ve made it clear that you’d rather bludgeoning McCain with TV ads rather than engage him in debates or other free mediums. How can you refuse millions in public money to ask for MORE from the very supporters you acknowledge are hurting so badly??? You call that “change?” I gave money to you in the primary, but you won’t see a dime from me again.

Here is one for Hillary on her channel

Long Live Hillary Clinton! The true president of the people. I hope to be able to vote for you soon as candidate for the democratic party in 2016! I campaign all i could all i went overboard for this campaign. So Hillary I thank you for running I am sadden for you not being president in 2008. Hillary we all supporters did these for you campaign and we pledge our vote to you and we did not see the candidate we wanted but Hillary we love you!

The Obama video that drew the sample comment currently has about 580 comments, while the Hillary video has 7.

That question is just an extension of what people were discussing in 1995 in relation to the picture in this video. I looked into it and it is indeed becoming a trend…

Vanity Fair

Carroll Daily Times Herald

Men’s Fitness

In the interest of ethics, I should point out that I got all those links from a blog that focuses on Ethics in a Digital World.

The headline in the Washington Post says Clinton Sorry. The report says that she apologized for her recent reference to the RFK assassination.

I don’t know if the quote at the end of the piece is complete, but I read it for context and I do not see the word sorry. An apology from Hillary Clinton is a lot like Heidi Diaz coming clean.

I wrote the first part of this entry without watching the video of Hillary’s comment (the one for for which she ‘apologized’). I have to admit that it doesn’t sound as bad as it looks in print.

The man who still stands a chance at being the First Man was once rumored to have a thing for Belinda Stronach.

Having a girlfriend in Canada is a cliche. Denying it is untypical, but Bill is a bit of a maverick.

I left this post unfinished earlier and I want to make a small retraction. Bill no longer stands a chance at being the First Man.

I am not an idiot. I know that when Michelle Obama recently reminisced about her early discouragement of Barack’s political ambitions and used the words these people are mean, she was launching a not so subtle dig at Hillary Clinton. I think that she has a point. Washington seems to have become a ‘win at all costs’ place in recent decades and the people who are best suited to that environment have gravitated there and flourished. Obama does seem to be substantively different than ‘those people’ and ‘those people’ might prevent him from changing the political landscape. Those people only have one vote each.

This video showing New York politicians including the New York Governor Endorsing Hillary Clinton. Used to be featured in her official website. There are no links or thumbnails pointing to this video on her site anymore, but the page still exists.

The former Governor seems to be smirking when Hillary talks about moral authority and values. It could be just the sun in his eyes.

This is the first American Presidential Election where YouTube is a relevant platform for discussion. That intrigued me at first, then I saw that the two people who were using it most effectively both hold their comments for moderation. After taking a moment to think about it, I realized that this was a step that both campaigns had to take. I personally had no interest in reading through the comments knowing that it was going to me a bunch of cheerleading.

Today, I noticed two things when comparing the YouTube channels of Obama and Clinton. Obama’s videos are more relevant in searches than Hillary’s. Obama has a LOT more comments.

I think the people who are responsible for approving comments for the two channels are using slightly different criteria. I do not have the time to delve deeply into the substantive differences of the comments. If anybody else wants to offer their opinion I would greatly appreciate it.

I filter for spam, but I don’t hold real comments for moderation at this time

You will not find too many Presidential candidates vowing to carry on the torch for Bush and Cheney. I think at last count, it stood at Zero. Since the present administration is not in a position to help with any campaigns, they have more time to do what they have been doing all along… hand out favors and alienate the rest of the World.

The general public has enough to worry about with the really big issues, like the war (which Bush and Cheney can take full credit for) and the economy (for which they deserve at least partial credit). The administration has walked behind this giant pile of lemons and opened up a little lemonade stand where they are giving away judicial appointments and other sweet stuff to the little people that have helped make it all possible.

Gustavus Adolphus Puryear IV was on loan to team Cheney to prepare him for debates in 2000 and 2004. He has made millions as the general counsel for CCA the private company that houses many of America’s federal prison inmates. Putting a man who has made obscene profits from imprisonment on the bench as a trial judge seems counterintuitive, but so does installing a man who made obscene profits as an executive for a defense contractor as Vice President.

I hadn’t expected this. Ralph Nader announced that he is running for President. I’m going to tell him the same thing that I used to tell the healthy and tenacious guinea pig that had outlived my children’s interest in him by a few years.

He actually has exceeded his life expectancy by about the same number of years that poor old Piggy did.

Rest in Peace, Piggy.

My title is an absolutely true statement. It is also almost completely beside the point with regard to the accusation made via a YouTube video by some greasy guy.

I didn’t really want to watch the video, but I did anyway. It is pretty unconvincing. Political opponents will have to take very private joy from this. Nobody could look good associating themselves with the ploy. The MSM is so far not touching his story with a ten foot pole. I think it is possible that the perpetrators of this are apolitical people who did it for attention and money. Larry Sinclair is going to get money, at least $10,000 from a website that is piggy backing on the story with a publicity stunt.