Still, the whole process wasn’t all that bad. Granted, getting a shot of anesthetic into your gums isn’t something I loved, but the aftereffects were amazing. The entire right side of my face became paralyzed within a few minutes and I couldn’t feel very much of anything. I remarked to my dentist that I felt like Two Face in Batman.

Sitting in the dentist chair made my mind wander, trying to imagine what “going to the dentist” even meant decades ago compared to now. Or what the earliest dental care was like. Nowdays we’ve got ultrasonic scalers that do some amazing work for your oral hygiene, but you have to wonder what people did without such treatments?

As the pain in my right-side jaw slowly subsides tonight, I’m left wondering how people dealt with pain not caused by treatment, but rather caused by the lack of available care. This led to me wondering how people dealt without modern medicine and survived.

Of course, this naturally led me to think about the national health care debate. As I sit here in my bed, teasing my molars with my tongue, I’m pretty sure I know where I fall in the debate.

People should be able to get health care. It should be reasonably priced, transparent, reformed, non-bureaucratic and available to all. It’s not a privilege, it’s a necessity to survive. Despite this economy, we’re a nation of abundance and wealth. Public health is a public good. It is something that we need to survive as a nation, to be a stronger, healthier workforce to compete in the world.

Should anyone be punished with a lifetime of pain because they get cancer, are born with a disorder, have an accident at work, were a victim of a crime, exposed to a virus or had a “pre-existing condition”? I don’t think so.

We have amazing advancements in medical care to help people who, for whatever reason, were dealt a bad hand in life. It shocks me at the lack of compassion and will to help create a system to address the physical ills of society.

But right now, so many are acting out of fear, driven to radicalism by lies and deliberate misinformation campaigns by pundits tapping into a political counter-zeitgeist for the sake of a few ratings points on the Nielsen.

Eventually, this pain in my teeth will fade away. But for others, they’ll continue to live with it the rest of their lives.

I’ll be reposting this liveblog Twitter feed over at Illinoize as well throughout the evening. It’ll be random thoughts observed throughout the day, but mostly start sometime after work. I’ll be making a trip to Chicago for the evening, so this should be quite fun.

Technorati Tags: Twitter, politics, election, president, campaign, liveblog, super+Tuesday, primary+election

Not that the comparison above between Republican and Democratic donors from Chicago is any surprise, but the Huffington Post has a nice Google Maps mashup that geographically charts presidential campaign contributions.

Found any other nifty charts, graphs, maps, interactive Flash apps, etc. that deals with the primaries tomorrow? Put them in the comments, I’d love to check them out.

Technorati Tags: Chicago, Illinois, campaign+finance, president, election, politics, money, Google+maps+mashup

So, who’s received more Internet traffic? Answer: It’s all in how you measure traffic, which means there’s no clear winner here.

Using the site Compete.com to compare site traffic between Obama and Clinton, the answer isn’t as clear cut as the first graph below.

First of all, let’s look at “people count” — a measure of unique visitors to each site. Unique visitors means “they only count a person once no matter how many times they visit a site in a given month.” So, if you visited a thousand times in one month, it counts just as much as the guy who only went to one page in the same month.

Uniques tell you one thing: the number of individuals who visited your site (with some variance: a guy at work can count twice if he also visits at home, etc.) and this is an OK measure. However, it’s not a true measure of traffic volume.

Traffic volume can also be measured by visits. Visits are described as the following:

Visits are initiated when a user enters a site. As the user interacts with the site the visit is live. Visits are considered live until the user’s interaction with the site has ceased for a 30-minute period.

For instance, User A enters Yahoo at 9:00. User A checks their email and reviews the week’s weather forecast. User A then goes to a meeting at 9:30. She returns at 10:30 and checks her Yahoo email again. Since 30 minutes lapsed between her two interactions User A is considered “one person” that made “two visits.”

Again, Obama’s also a winner in this category. Not a big surprise, really. He does have more Facebook friends, after all.

But now let’s switch gears for a moment away from traffic and look at engagement metrics for Obama and Clinton.

First, take a look at average stay, which is the “number of minutes an average visitor spends on a site during each visit.” Notice that Obama’s held the lead here, but Clinton’s made considerable gains in the past few months to catch him. People are looking to investigate the issues and evaluate and compare the two — or at least that’s my guess.

Another thing I’d consider here is that Obama’s site has lots of social networking features. Sure, this is a cool thing, but it could mean that more of his supporters are spending time doing MySpace-ish stuff than the Clinton users who are perhaps newer and learning more about the candidate’s stances on issues. Newer users spending more time online learning about a candidate is more valuable (at least I’d argue it is) than visitors using your site to blog about a candidate they’re already supporting. I’d pose a theory that Clinton users are more interested in text-based content than social interaction, which Obama users might favor more heavily. Now, which one translates into votes at the polls? We’ll soon see.

But here’s the shocker folks. When it comes down to the number of pages per visit in a month, Clinton has the huge advantage since November. Check it out:

What could account for this? Several things: 1.) Obama’s site might use a lot of AJAX, which means that site analytics gets wildly thrown off. 2.) People visit Obama’s site, but they don’t click through. 3.) Clinton voters are coming to learn more about her in one sitting, whereas Obama visitors are coming once to see a new piece of media, then leave.

A lot of site analytics data doesn’t mean that it’ll determine tomorrow’s outcome, but it’s interesting to think about. As we continue in the years to come, learning what it all means will become crucial to campaigns in their communication strategy. Right now we’re in the infantile years of online political communication. Just imagine the innovation we’ll see in the next four years and how that’ll rapidly change the landscape of how we vote as younger generations become more technologically savvy.

Technorati Tags: Barack+Obama, Hillary+Clinton, site+traffic, page+views, comparison, graph, chart, data, statistics, site+analytics, online+communications, politics, election, campaign, president

For at least 4 hours, Barack Obama’s campaign Web site has displayed that image above. His Web site is down, servers overloaded just mere hours before the polls open for Super Duper Fat Tuesday tomorrow.

It didn’t come online fully until about midnight on Monday evening.

While some might see this as a good sign for Obama — high interest means that lots of people like him, which translates to votes — I think this is an example of how not to create a campaign Web site.

If you don’t have the server capacity, the proper software that can’t provide scalability and no back-up plan for high web traffic volume, then you’re going to fall flat on your face.

The site’s administrators should have predicted this was going to happen. They should have not just a back-up server to help share the increased load, but also implemented a trimmed down version of the site to help reduce the amount of bandwidth they’d chew through.

On any other day, this wouldn’t be such a big deal, but we’re talking the night before the biggest primary day. This is when undecided voters are doing their research on Google. This is when supporters are e-mailing, blogging, etc. to their friends and family to go learn more about the candidate. Meanwhile, your biggest communication tool isn’t operational at all and your rival’s site is working.

There’s been plenty of campaign blunders, but there’s a whole new host of them that’ll crop up now that the Internet’s playing such a tremendous role in political communications. If things go badly for Obama tomorrow, there’s a good chance you’ll see this as a case study in an online communications preparations textbook.

Technorati Tags: Barack+Obama, Hillary+Clinton, online+communications, Web+traffic, server+crash, president, election, politics, Internet

Only a day after I pointed out that Gov. Rod Blagojevich was all alone on Facebook in his holy Web 2.0 crusade to get the people of Illinois healthcare, he’s received 169 additional supporters for his group, “I Support Healthcare.”

(Click images for full screenshots)

Before:

And…. after:

Looks like some of the 2,148 “Friends of Blagojevich” decided to take my advice and give him an early birthday present (much more preferred over Facebook gifts). Keep it up guys!

Wait, what’s that? He doesn’t have 2,148 friends anymore?

Why did this unknown supporter leave? I’ve got a theory: Maybe it was because Blagojevich prefers watching the Blackhawks game instead of watching a “rigged” game in the Illinois House.

Technorati Tags: Rod+Blagojevich, Facebook, politics, health+care, social+networks

Mike Flannery’s report on how Gov. Rod Blagojevich goes to Blackhawks games instead of being present in Springfield for mass-transit funding legislative action has gathered quite a bit of attention. And it’s deserved. After all, when was the last time you remember your local nightly news devoted 7 minutes and 55 seconds to a single-topic story dealing with a politician that didn’t involve a scandal or election? My understanding is that this sort of thing is unheard of or at least rare in TV news.

While many are drawing their own conclusions about how Blagojevich’s stay-at-home governing style is affecting important issues like the CTA, I thought this wouldn’t be a bad time to look at the lighter side. For instance, how has his Facebook popularity fared? (Please note, you’ll need a Facebook account to view some links.)

Blagojevich is the sole member of the Facebook group “I Support Healthcare,” of which he is the creator.

(Click for the full-size group page)

The group’s profile makes this statement:

“This group is for people who want to work to make affordable, quality healthcare for everyone a reality.”

Despite having 2,148 “Friends of Blagojevich” that support him on his Facebook profile, the governor is alone in supporting healthcare.

(Click to see a full-size image)

That’s right. Not a single of his supporters on Facebook has joined his group to support healthcare.

How can his lack of support on Facebook be explained? Could this be a result of his “inaccessibility” by not checking his profile often enough and posting on his supporter’s walls? Is this a sign of his “poor skills at building relationships” surfacing not only in Springfield, but also in the complicated world of Web 2.0? Is his “lack of interest in details” of items in his supporters’ News Feed updates driving people away from Facebook groups he creates?

I should point out that Rod’s birthday is coming up in 11 days, so maybe some of his closest 2,148 supporters on Facebook can post on his wall and join his “I Support Healthcare” group as a birthday gift.

(Cross posted to Illinoize, a site about Illinois politics from various political bloggers across the state.)

Technorati Tags: Facebook, social+network, Rod+Blagojevich, governor, Illinois, politics, Springfield, Chicago, CTA, CBS+2

I just got done watching the CNN / YouTube debate between the Republicans, looking to see how much different it would be than the Democratic equivalent a few months ago. Frankly, I don’t really care much for the format, or for the production of the entire debate as a whole (Why doesn’t CNN “full-screen” the videos for us watching at home?), but this one was more lively.

What shocked me, however, was that in the post-debate analysis on CNN during the Anderson Cooper 360 show, one of the panelists mentioned he was receiving e-mails from people saying that questioner Ret. Brigadier General Keith Kerr is part of a Hillary Clinton steering committee.

Well, it’s true. Here’s a press release from Hillary Clinton’s Web site from June 27, 2007: Clinton Campaign Announces Launch Of LGBT Americans For Hillary Steering Committee (Google cached here)

Ret. Brigadier General Keith Kerr is one of nearly 70 members of Hillary Clinton’s steering committee to “work with the campaign on several areas including political outreach, communications, policy advice and counsel, and fundraising.”

Immediately after hearing the comment from the panelist about Kerr’s possible association with the Hillary Clinton campaign, Anderson Cooper quickly said that CNN had no knowledge of this and that if they had known, a disclosure should have been made. Later, at the end of his program, Cooper said this:

“We don’t know if [Kerr] is still on this. We are trying to find out more information. But certainly, if we had had that information, we would have acknowledged that in using his question — if we had used it at all.”

Given prior flaps with claims that CNN was trying to coax questioners to lob softballs about pearl vs. diamond necklaces for Hillary Clinton, this might not bode well for their ability to maintain an image of being able to host unbiased, fair and well-informed debates uninfluenced by outside forces.

The media needs to be asking three questions:
1.) To the Hillary Clinton campaign: Was Kerr a plant?
2.) To Kerr: Were you acting as a plant or independently?
3.) To CNN: Will you be fact-checking backgrounds of all question askers in future debates?

And the media itself needs to make sure that in future debates that this doesn’t happen again. It makes the industry appear irresponsible and unable to use a basic Google search.

It’s obvious how the spin’s going to go down in the Republican camp, but I’m hoping there’s going to be solid reporting on the facts surrounding this situation. CNN and the Clinton campaign have already received enough bad press over plants in debates, and this isn’t helping voter apathy in any sort of positive fashion. For now, I’m reserving my judgment until more facts come out, but it certainly seems that Cooper was caught off guard.

Kerr’s question was in reference to gays being allowed to openly serve in the military. Watch it for yourself:

UPDATES: Blogosphere explodes, Mainstream media picks up story, CNN responds
+ It’s headlining the Drudge Report right now: “BOOB TUBE: CNN DUPED BY HILLARY PLANT AT REPUBLICAN DEBATE”
+ The New York Times Caucus Blog has picked up the story:

But why did they let Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr, who came out as gay after his retirement, to rule the floor for an extensive speech? And why did they not tell the audience that he is a national co-chair of a veterans’ committee for Senator Hillary Clinton?

The right-wing/conservative/Republican blogosphere is exploding on this, big time:
+ Newsbusters: CNN Fails to Mention Retired Gay General’s Endorsement of Hillary
+ Stop the ACLU: Hillary Plant in Republican CNN YouTube Debate?

+ Here comes the storm: Drudge Report has linked to Townhall.com: Hillary plants question in Republican debate
+ FOX News Cameron’s Corner blog: CNN Slipup!!
+ You can see the blogosphere reaction with a Google Blogs Search and Technorati Search
+ HotAir makes a good point: Video: Debate questioner is affiliated with Hillary’s — and Kerry’s — campaigns

“Just identify the guy, CNN. His question’s perfectly fair.”

The mainstream media is starting to pick up on the story, although both tend to be a bit more “insider”:
+ Politico manages to find some new information and gets a new angle: ‘Gay question’ general linked to Clinton

Kerr told CNN that he had not done work for the Clinton campaign, and CNN verified before the debate that he had not contributed money to any candidate, the broadcaster said in a blog post after the debate.

+ Washington Times: Clinton plant infiltrates CNN debate

+ CNN has responded via their Political Ticker blog: General from GOP debate linked to Democratic campaign

CNN Senior Vice President and Executive Producer of the debate, David Bohrman, says, “We regret this, and apologize to the Republican candidates. We never would have used the General’s question had we known that he was connected to any presidential candidate.”

Prior to the debate, CNN had verified his military background and that he had not contributed any money to any presidential candidate.

Following the debate, Kerr told CNN that he’s done no work for the Clinton campaign. He says he is a member of the Log Cabin Republicans and was representing no one other than himself.

+ Here’s some more videos:

First, Kerr’s response to whether or not the candidates answered his question:

And here’s Anderson Cooper’s “mea culpa” at the end of his program:

Technorati Tags: Keith+Kerr, Hillary+Clinton, CNN, YouTube, campaign, president, election, politics, media, TV, cable, Republican, debate, Anderson+Cooper

In case you haven’t, check it out, but then keep reading as it ties into a few points I’ve been wanting to make about social networks, politics and now an interesting essay on the emergence of socio-economic class within these networks.

While much of the media has been writing amusing stories talking about the model’s sensual figure and playing up the quite literal sexiness of the story dealing with the so-called “rockstar” candidate, I think they’ve been missing the bigger picture that the Obamagirl video illustrates. What we’re beginning to see is the start of a new era of political campaigns that will be waged online, and I don’t mean this in the often reported way of “oh, they’re using the Internet now to do video and raise money.”

No, that’s not what I’m talking about. Of course they’ll have campaign Web sites and e-mail alerts. We saw that in 2004 at the grassroots level. It’s been done. What I’m interested in discussing revolves around how political campaigns will not just ramp up operations online, but how they’ll integrate social networks to target constituentcies and have to wage two different types of campaigns: traditional and online.

While the Internet is almost commonplace, it’s still not the dominate form of communication. It’s still a competitor with TV, radio and even newspapers and regular old snail mail. For political campaigns, these traditional paid media tools are still used to great effect in localized elections. The Internet might be a part of these operations, but there’s no reason to see it overtaking these in the near future, at least on small-scale races and, more importantly, in rural areas.

When it comes to the Internet, there’s still a great divide between those with access to broadband technologies and those who are still stuck on dial-up modems. While cable companies have built out substantially, buildout isn’t compete in a many rural areas. The technology to use high-speed connections simply isn’t available everywhere. In these places, the Internet will have minimal effect on campaigns. Here, direct and traditional media will still have dominant role. To reach these voters, campaigns will have to still employ traditional tactics to gain support.

To bridge this gap, many wireless technologies are being explored. As cell phone networks continue to expand and increase bandwidth over their mobile networks, it’s possible that we’ll see cell phones become a new market to watch political campaigns target for their message. This means campaigns will have to begin developing strategies to a mobile consumer marketplace. And the fortunate thing about this type of campaign means that each person reached via these networks can grouped together by demographics via location and area code.

Here’s a million-dollar idea: begin building cross-referenced cell phone number databases with voter registration records and sell access to this data. Even better, integrate and partner with social networks like Facebook to get an even better idea of what potential voters like and dislike. And later, I’ll explain why partnering and paying attention to Facebook specifically, not MySpace, will be more valuable to political campaigns.

What we see developing in areas with wide-reaching broadband access is a new type of political monster. Right now it’s being realized on a national scale because of broad popularity of candidates in the national media spotlight. Analyzing these races now will probably serve as a template for races on a smaller scale in the future and also gives some insight as to how we can expect campaigns to adapt to the potential the Internet offers.

What many realize is the ability of the Internet to be used as a tool for elections. It can be used to distribute information and message without the filter of the traditional mainstream media. It can be used to anonymously attack opponents. It can be used to generate grassroots support. It can be used to connect like-minded individuals and influence public opinion of those who are undecided via social networks. And, best of all, it’s fast.

But the greatest variable for the Internet campaign is the unavoidable and chaotic factor of what I’m dubbing the user-generated politician. The more popular a candidate becomes, the more likely he or she will become represented by the users. The Internet provides the ability for fans or voters to become unconnected activists in the name of their superstar. This cannot be controlled, nor can it be stopped.

With the rise of Obama’s popularity came the inevitable Obamagirl video. It was bound to happen, and as Obama himself said, “More stuff like this will be popping up all the time.” This means that users will be generating the image of the politician more and more, hence my previously mentioned term. Who a candidate is to the voter will be defined not just by a media strategy team, but also those who support the candidate.

Once political campaigns realize this, they’ll have to find a way to compensate in an attempt to moderate the discussion and focus a message they want to get through. Pushing an agenda through traditional paid media could be undercut by the user-generated politician’s own popularity. Just like TV changed political campaigns forever, the Internet users are going to be altering how the game is played.

This problem, however, does have potential advantages. As I mentioned before, the rise of social networks presents unique advantages for political campaigns to take advantage of. But what social network should be used and sought after to gain the most ground?

Right now, there are two clear leaders in the area of social networks: Facebook and MySpace. First, a look at the statistics says that MySpace boasts around 106 million users and Facebook has 25 million (numbers taken from Wikipedia). While one might be tempted to think that MySpace is the superior network and should be given the most attention, I’d argue that Facebook should be the targeted audience for a multitude of reasons.

My main evidence for my hypothesis comes from a recent essay by danah boyd. In her essay, she makes the case for the formation of two social classes within and between these two social networks. The first, hegemonic, tends to use Facebook. The second, subaltern, prefers using MySpace.

The goodie two shoes, jocks, athletes, or other “good” kids are now going to Facebook. These kids tend to come from families who emphasize education and going to college. They are part of what we’d call hegemonic society. They are primarily white, but not exclusively. They are in honors classes, looking forward to the prom, and live in a world dictated by after school activities.

MySpace is still home for Latino/Hispanic teens, immigrant teens, “burnouts,” “alternative kids,” “art fags,” punks, emos, goths, gangstas, queer kids, and other kids who didn’t play into the dominant high school popularity paradigm. These are kids whose parents didn’t go to college, who are expected to get a job when they finish high school. These are the teens who plan to go into the military immediately after schools. Teens who are really into music or in a band are also on MySpace. MySpace has most of the kids who are socially ostracized at school because they are geeks, freaks, or queers.

You will have to read her essay to get a better appreciation for how these classes are defined, but the important thing to take away for the purposes of political campaigns is that Facebook better represent those more likely to vote. It’s been shown those who are better educated and from higher socio-economic status are more likely to punch cards in November.

So, this means if you’re using Facebook, you’d be more likely to be politically aware and campaigns should take notice of that important constituency. And it’s only a matter of time before they do really begin using Facebook to build up their support networks, fundraise and spread media.

But as boyd notes in her essay, there’s the troubling development of two classes on the Internet. Notice, this comes at a time where anyone can sign up for either network, yet one has become the elite network and we’re seeing a separation based along similar real-life lines. Wasn’t the point of the Internet to bring down these barriers between those of different classes and have true diversity be represented? Shouldn’t the democratic nature of the Internet lead to equality in all places?

Apparently, the social attitude we carry in the real world carry over to the online one to a certain degree. And for political campaigns, this means that a targeted audience can be identified through an already popular site that continues to grow with educated potential voters each year. This means Facebook is developing a base of users that will be highly desired in upcoming campaigns.

And Facebook is a better platform for political campaigns as well. Unlike MySpace, Facebook has a focus on community building and social interaction. The extent of MySpace is posting on someone’s wall and becoming “friends.” Facebook has both, but now they’ve expanded greatly. Other users can be tagged in blog posts and photos. There’s the ability to form groups, upload videos and even develop third-party applications. The innovative spirit of Facebook allows its users to play and interact in a much more meaningful way. This means more ideas are being shared among friends and therefore a campaign message has better ability to reach others. Rather than spamming, a message can get a referal from a friend’s news feed.

I think that once politicians notice the opportunities that Facebook has for really developing a strong network online, they’ll flock to it and Facebook will become one of the strongest political networks of young voters. Meanwhile, the cumbersomness of MySpace will leave those users in the dark. What we’re likely to see is network discrimination: politicians will play to Facebook, not MySpace, users and their temperments.

Unless MySpace dramatically changes its abilities and really innovates to become a “more social” social network, I suspect its users will not be a big part of the online democracy movement. Do I think they’ll never vote or be not involved politically? No, but I don’t think they’ll be a force to be reckoned with.

I have other thoughts about the possible implications of the user-generated candidate, but I’ll save those for later. Mainly, they revolve around campaign finance regulations and how we could see corporations, unions and PACs playing a larger role in social network political advertising. Doesn’t that sound like fun?

Edit: It’s been pointed out in the comments that Danah Boyd’s name is actually legally lowercase, ie: danah boyd. I’ll grant that 1.) I was not aware of this and 2.) that many Web sites don’t capitalize her name. However, I will point out that the esteemed New York Times did capitalize her name. This presents the interesting question of whether a copy editor, writer or journalist goes with the person’s desired punctuation for his or her name, or rather their own stylebook of choice. Tough call. As someone who really likes capitalization of such words as “Internet” and “Web site,” I’m tempted to go that route as it visually brings attention to the fact a person is being presented in the story. However, there’s a need to acknowledge an individual’s interpretation of his or her name. Therefore, I’ve decided to change it to lowercase.

Technorati Tags: politics, video, social+networks, YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, new+media, blogs, elections, user-generated, Danah+Boyd, socio-economics, class

1.) I’m spending most of my free time job hunting, i.e.: writing cover letters and perfecting the perfect clip portfolio.

2.) I’m busy at my internship with the Rockford Register Star working on two rather large projects. Plus, there’s still all sorts of fun stuff going on at the statehouse. The press corps, along with the rest of the Land of Lincoln, is waiting on a state budget to be finalized, but there’s plenty of entertaining distractions to be had.

For instance, a visit from Rick Nielsen of the Rockford-native band Cheap Trick:

And wow, check out those shoes he’s sporting:

So, why was Nielsen gracing the Illinois Senate chamber with his presence today? Well, several senators sponsored a resolution to proclaim every April 1st “Cheap Trick Day” in Illinois.

Nielsen even addressed the Senate (mp3 audio here) and during the process threw guitar picks onto the chamber floor. It was a bit wild to say the least.

As I mentioned earlier, budget negotiations are still going on this month in what is known as “overtime session.” Essentially, session normally ends May 31st, but since both chambers didn’t approve a budget for the next fiscal year (which starts this July 1st) things get more complicated.

Now to pass a budget, 3/5ths of each chamber needs to approve a budget instead of a simple majority. This means there will likely need to be some sort of bi-partisan agreement at the end of all this. (As a technical matter, there’s a way the Democrats can pass a budget without the Republicans still, but I’d rather not get into that right now.)

With this in mind, Rich Miller of The Capitol Fax Blog has started selling “overtime”-themed merchandise and is donating all profits to the Sojourn Shelter. Pick up some swag if you feel so inclined.

I picked up a few buttons:

To add to my bureau’s awesome button wall:

And also, there’s a cool polo and plenty of other T-shirts to suit your Illinois political geekiness:

So, that’s a brief update on what’s up with my life these days. You know me, hanging out with rockstars and collecting buttons.

Technorati Tags: Cheap+Trick, Rick+Nielsen, overtime+session, state+budget, Illinois, politics, T-shirt, blog, buttons, rock+n+roll, Springfield, Capitol