politics, the blogosphere, and the public forum

The implications of technology and advanced forms of communication are explosive, creating innovative opportunities for advertising and product placement, increased accessibility of news coverage, a comprehensive circulation of scholarly materials, an open forum of the public intellectual, and an unlimited potential for political networking and exchange.

It is on the crest of this technological revolution that presidential campaigning and debate must take place. We have seen this already in the youtube debates, presidential myspace accounts, facebook fundraising, the online Logo forum, and right here in the blogosphere.

I will particularly highlight the blogosphere, as it has grown into its own self-sustaining life force, filled with spectrum of viewpoints and credentials.

In fact, "the blogosphere is big and its readers spend more time and money online than Web users who don't read them. Fifty million Americans, or 30 percent of all American Internet users, visited a blog in the first quarter of 2005...Traffic increased by 45 percent from the first quarter of 2004. The average blog reader viewed 77 percent more pages than the average Internet user who doesn't read blogs (16,000 versus 9,000 for the quarter), the report found. Blog readers average 23 hours online per week, compared with the overall Web user's average of 13 hours. Blog readers are 11 percent more likely than the average Internet user to have incomes of or greater than $75,000" (ClickZ).

In politics, where (minimally) half of a career is spent trying to stay in office, the blogosphere must be front and center in campaign discussion and strategy--because it would be plain stupid otherwise. Because for better or worse, technology is shaping the political landscape.

The extent to which politicians utilize the Internet and technology as tools of change and to reach out to constituents speaks to the savvy of candidates themselves.

To demonstrate this point, I refer to johnedwards.org, which was re-purchased by a civilian after the Edwards team failed to renew the website.

I am not sure which is more powerful: the fact that a viable presidential candidate flat out over-looked something as critical as the Internet--or the fact that public intellectuals can use the Internet as another medium through which to hold candidates accountable.

The site now reads, "I will exercise my right to free speech by sharing my opinions about John Edwards."

In its latest post, johnedwards.org refutes a comment that it "stole" the site from John Edwards, explaining "Individuals get to keep their domain names forever, as long as they pay about ten dollars per year to renew the registration. John Edwards did not renew "JohnEdwards.org" so I bought it in a public auction."

The post ends, declaring that "Neglecting control of "johnedwards.org" is a major blunder that represents complete ignorance of the Internet. This will go down in history as being at least as stupid as when Senator Stevens said that the Internet "is a series of tubes.""

Only in a world where the Internet is paramount can its negligence be considered a legitimate claim to poor candidacy. I argue that we live in such a world, and accordingly, candidates need to get with it, or go home.