Web War Waged For The White House

On The Internet, The Medium Is The Message - So How Do The Two Candidates Stack Up?

(CBS)  There is a new front line in the presidential campaign battle this year: your computer screen. A recent survey shows almost half of us use the Internet, e-mail, and text messages to get political news. That means what the candidates say on their Web site - and how they say it - is crucial, CBS News science and technology correspondent Daniel Sieberg reports.

---

Sure, Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama still make speeches, kiss babies, and do grip-and-grins - but much of the real campaign has gone online.

"It's about understanding how to use the Web to get your message out there and get your supporters to distribute it for you," said Andrew Rasiej, online entrepreneur and founder of the Personal Democracy Forum.

In this case, the medium really is the message. It's where more than positions differentiate the candidates - it's in how they're using their Web sites. CBS News went to Web design expert Doug Jaeger for his professional review, which started with a complaint.

"This is the home page, this is where we're greeting people," he said, showing McCain and Obama's Web sites. "Do you think these guys could make eye contact with us? No."

Jaeger describes Obama's site as "clean" and McCain's as "cluttered."

"He's using lots of different type faces at all different sizes, which gives you a feeling of chaos," he said.

Both Web sites target specific audiences. McCain goes after six, including veterans, lawyers and sportsmen. Obama has 18, ranging from Asian-Americans to women. Kids have their own special area, including a logo to color.

McCain offers a game called Pork Invaders on his Facebook page. Kill enough pigs, and you're rewarded ... with a statement about pork-barrel politics.

"Obama's then goes on to do what McCain's doesn't, which is to provide his supporters this whole infrastructure to organize themselves to do things that are going to help get Obama elected, and McCain's just doesn't do that," noted Politico's Ben Smith.

The Obama campaign may hope the Internet will do for Obama what television did for John F. Kennedy in 1960. Just compare the candidate's popularity on the social networking sites Facebook and MySpace. Obama has 1,281,471 Facebook "friends" and 443,004 on MySpace. McCain has 192,957 on Facebook and 62,203 on MySpace.

Enter a zip code on Obama's site and you can find, or put together, events, like one fundraising bake sale organized by Arlene Geiger.

"It allows everybody who wants to do something to put their thing out there and see if people get excited about it," Geiger said.

McCain has just recently added a similar feature. He's been using a different approach to get supporters to "spread the word." The campaign supplies the talking points - you post them on a blog and get reward points for doing so - redeemable for prizes like riding the Straight-Talk Express.

But McCain's Web site is still playing catch up to Obama's use of cyberspace, and there are fewer than 12 weeks until Election Day.

"Building communities online takes time and building strong robust Web sites also takes time. So it's kind of like getting a 747 to take off from a small regional airport. There ain't enough runway," Rasiej said.

And there's no guarantee that online enthusiasm will translate into votes for either candidate.

"I don't think you can get elected president of the United States without using the Internet, but you're certainly not going to get elected president of the United States with it alone," Rasiej said.

Making the Internet has triumphed as a new voice for the people - and maybe a transformative tool for the candidates.

[jongood53]

...
Yes! An important point is that Americans recognized our need and demanded change and sought a President who could lead again, and drafted Obama to run. Obama is not calling for change, he is answering the call.
Posted by andor3 at 01:51 AM : Aug 15, 2008
=================================


Please, let us get one thing absolutely clear....For about this, there is absolutely no debate:

America did not "draft[] Obama to run."

The fascist who run the DNC disenfranchised a sufficient number of DemoTard lemming votes in the primary so they could use their secret "Super Delegate" network to install Sen. NObama.

We''ve seen this exact tactic used every time a dictator has ever come to power.

I have told you folks time and again, we are witnessing the Libtards doing exactly what they do best.....Working to destroy America as built, so they can implement the "CHANGE" they want when they rebuild it into the NEW AMERICA....

The MARXIST AMERICA that all DemoTards dream of.

[jongood53]

...
Yes! An important point is that Americans recognized our need and demanded change and sought a President who could lead again, and drafted Obama to run. Obama is not calling for change, he is answering the call.
Posted by andor3 at 01:51 AM : Aug 15, 2008
=================================

Please, let us get one thing absolutely clear....For about this, there is absolutely no debate:

America did not "draft[] Obama to run."

The fascist who run the DNC disenfranchised a sufficient number of DemoTard lemming votes in the primary so they could use their secret "Super Delegate" network to install Sen. NObama.

We''ve seen this exact tactic used every time a dictator has ever come to power.

I have told you folks time and again, we are witnessing the Libtards doing exactly what they do best.....Working to destroy America as built, so they can implement the "CHANGE" they want when they rebuild it into the NEW AMERICA....

The MARXIST AMERICA that all DemoTards dream of.

[babegirl55]

I find this very interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkUj9EIINIs. Also, from the Vets: http://votevets.org/mccain.html. But lets not forget this: http://www.alternet.org/election08/90956/?page=1. And that for starters.

[tothestars2]

I wonder why CBS news has no report on the racist remark of dnc leader dean about republicans as other news org. have?

[starleo146]

Unfit for Publication: Swiftboater Book ''The Obama Nation'' Filled with Falsehoods

By Matthew Gertz and Eric H. Hananoki, Media Matters for America. Posted August 8, 2008

[starleo146]

Will Obama still run against the war if the reports coming from Iraq and Afghanistan continue to validate the Bush administration''s military policy in the region? If McCain wanted to stay the course until he could declare victory and stage an orderly withdrawal, why would Obama object? Would Obama do anything different? [Pages 259-260]

But Obama''s January 2007 bill -- the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007 -- establishes a timetable for the withdrawal of most troops from Iraq, and calls for "appropriate units of the Armed Forces" to be redeployed to Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region, as well as "elsewhere, to meet urgent United States security needs." As Media Matters has noted, Obama has been calling for an increase of U.S. troops in Afghanistan since at least 2006 and has specifically proposed the addition of at least two combat brigades since 2007.

[starleo146]

Obama and Afghanistan

Discussing Obama''s "antiwar foreign policy," Corsi conflates Iraq and Afghanistan to falsely suggest that Obama supports "de-escalat[ing]" troops from Afghanistan. Corsi writes:

Obama can be expected to invoke more explanations, attempting to sound patriotic in his unwillingness to abandon U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan now that they are there, but he will still be explaining himself. A presidential candidate in a close general election campaign who is forced to spend time explaining contradictions between his words and actions is, by definition, losing ground.

Since becoming a U.S. senator in 2004, Obama has not introduced a single resolution or bill calling on President Bush to end the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, only a January 2007 bill to de-escalate. []

[starleo146]

However, as Media Matters has documented, numerous economists have challenged the assertion that cuts in the capital gains tax raise revenue in the long term. Additionally, Congress'' Joint Committee on Taxation estimated in June 2006 that the 2006 extension of the 2003 cuts on capital gains taxes would result in decreased revenues of $20 billion over 10 years.

Size of the military

Corsi falsely claims that Obama "has pledged to reduce the size of the military [Page 257]." Similarly, Corsi writes that "Obama will undoubtedly campaign in the general election saying he wants to maintain a strong military, just as he will say he is fully committed to the survival of Israel. Obama''s problem is that neither position may be credible in the face of video clips that show him saying he wants to reduce the military, cut nuclear weapons, and pull out of Iraq" [Page 279]. In fact, during the Democratic primary, Obama repeatedly asserted that he would "increase our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines." Obama''s "Plan for a 21st Century Military," posted on his website, states: "Expand to Meet Military Needs on the Ground: A major stress on our troops comes from insufficient ground forces. Barack Obama supports plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 troops and the Marines by 27,000 troops. Increasing our end strength will help units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments and decrease the strain on military families

[starleo146]

Corsi writes that in a September 19, 2007, blog post, U.S. News & World Report money and politics blogger James Pethokoukis "pointed to the result of most Democratic plans to increase corporate taxes: the government ends up collecting less capital gains tax revenue, not more." Corsi continues:

Why? The answer is fairly simple: under higher capital gains tax rates, investors realize their gains before the higher capital gains rates kick in. Moreover, as long as the higher rates remain in effect, investors and corporate boards make decisions to reduce the amount of capital gains that have to be realized. One clear way to accomplish this goal is for investors and corporations to cut back on investments. Discourage investments and fewer capital gains taxes will be paid. As a result, higher capital gains tax rates tend to produce less capital gains tax revenue, not more. The economics of this principle have been proved repeatedly in the two decades since Reagan was president [Page 245].

[starleo146]

While Sutherland was happy to give Obama latitude in voting "present," rather than "no," she was quick to note that "it''s also not a ''yes'' vote."

As reported by The Wall Street Journal, some of the specific abortion votes in question include two occasions in 1997 (HB 382 and SB 230) when he voted "present" on bills which would have prohibited a procedure referred to by its critics as "partial-birth abortion." In 2001, he voted "present" on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted "present" on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if he or she survived a failed abortion.

[starleo146]

Speaking to ABC News as Obama was preparing to join Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and the wife of Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., in addressing Planned Parenthood''s national conference in Washington, D.C., Sutherland said Obama approached her in the late 1990s and worked with her and others in crafting the strategy of voting "present." She remembers meeting with Obama outside of the Illinois Senate chambers on the Democratic side of the aisle. She and Obama finished their conversation in his office.

"He came to me and said: ''My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women,''" said Sutherland in recounting her conversation with Obama. "A ''present'' vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted."

"What it did," she continued, "was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so" because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. "A ''present'' vote would protect them. Your senator voted ''present.'' Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means."

[starleo146]

"We at Planned Parenthood view those as leadership votes," Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, told ABC News. "We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on ''partial birth'' and ''born alive''. They put these bills out all the time because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats."

[starleo146]

In fact, contrary to Corsi''s suggestion that no senators voted against the bill -- and therefore Obama voted "present" because he did not want to be the only one to vote against it -- the roll call for that vote was "34 voting aye, 6 voting Nay, 12 voting present," according to the transcript of the Senate''s proceeding, which Corsi himself cites. According to ABC News, Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, stated that Obama voted "present" on the bill as part of a legislative strategy. From a July 17, 2007, post on the ABC News blog Political Radar:

When Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., voted "present," rather than "yes" or "no" on a handful of controversial abortion votes in the Illinois state senate, he did so with the explicit support of the president and CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council.

[starleo146]

Bill Kristol''s march 17,new York Times column also cited Kessler''s March 16 Newmax.com column. Later in the day on March 17, Kristol issued a correction that read:

In this column, I cite a report that Sen. Obama had attended services at Trinity Church on July 22, 2007. The Obama campaign has provided information showing that Sen. Obama did not attend Trinity that day. I regret the error.

Abortion rights

Discussing a bill amending the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 -- opponents of which said posed a threat to abortion rights -- Corsi writes:

Not wanting to be the only Illinois state senator to vote against the bill, a move that Obama realized would be politically unpopular with his constituency, he took the easy way out and voted "Present."5 In the Illinois Senate, voting "Present" is the equivalent of voting "No," because a bill must have a majority counting only "Yes" votes to pass [Page 238].

[starleo146]

Corsi wrote:

Obama''s denial spurred investigators to prove the contrary. On March 16, two days after Obama''s denial appeared on the Huffington Post, new evidence emerged. NewsMax''s Ronald Kessler reported that Obama had been in Trinity United Church of Christ on July 22, when Kessler was present.74 Kessler claimed he and Obama both heard Wright preach a sermon that day in which the preacher blamed the "white arrogance" of America''s Caucasian majority for the world''s suffering, especially the oppression of blacks. The Obama campaign promptly posted a new denial, claiming Obama did not attend church services in Chicago on July 22.75

While Corsi acknowledged that "[t]he Obama campaign promptly posted a new denial, claiming Obama did not attend church services in Chicago on July 22," he did not note that, as reported by several media outlets, Obama was in Miami on July 22, 2007, speaking at the National Council of La Raza''s (NCLR) annual convention. According to the NCLR''s schedule for the day, Obama spoke as part of a "special forum" between 1:30 and 3 p.m. ET.

[starleo146]

NewsMax, Obama, and Trinity Church

Corsi falsely claims that "NewsMax''s Ronald Kessler reported that Obama had been in Trinity United Church of Christ on July 22 [2007], when Kessler was present," during which Obama''s then-pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, gave a sermon in which he "blamed the ''white arrogance'' of America''s Caucasian majority for the world''s suffering, especially the oppression of blacks." In fact, Kessler did not report that he had been at Trinity United on that date. Kessler''s March 16 Newsmax report cited an August 9, 2007, Newsmax.com article by "freelance reporter" Jim Davis and stated: "On July 22nd [2007] he [Davis] sat next to Barack Obama as Barack Obama heard some of these same statements from that very preacher [Wright] and was nodding along."

[starleo146]

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama waited 16 months to attempt the exorcism. But when he finally sat down with the Tribune editorial board Friday, Obama offered a lengthy and, to us, plausible explanation for the presence of now-indicted businessman Tony Rezko in his personal and political lives.

The most remarkable facet of Obama''s 92-minute discussion was that, at the outset, he pledged to answer every question the three dozen Tribune journalists crammed into the room would put to him. And he did. []

Less protection, less control, would have meant less hassle for his campaign. That said, Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail. That''s a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged.

[starleo146]

Additionally, Corsi writes of Obama''s March 14 meeting with reporters from the Chicago Tribune to discuss his relationship with Rezko: "The transcript of the question-and-answer session clearly shows the Tribune staff had a hard time believing Obama. Yet Obama persisted, denying he coordinated the purchase with Rezko [Page 168]." But Corsi did not reconcile his assessment that "the Tribune staff had a hard time believing Obama" with the subsequent publication of an editorial in which the paper asserted that Obama had "offered a lengthy and, to us, plausible explanation for the presence of now-indicted businessman Tony Rezko in his personal and political lives." From the March 16 editorial:

[starleo146]

Corsi later writes: "The [Boston] Globe also reported real estate agent Schwan''s recollection that the Obamas may not have made the highest bid, but that the willingness of the Obamas and Rita Rezko to close in June was decisive." In fact, as Media Matters has repeatedly noted, the Obamas reportedly did not receive a "discount" on their purchase of the house, and the sellers have reportedly said that the Obamas gave the best offer. Documents available on the Obama campaign''s website indicate that the original asking price of the house was $1.95 million and that the Obamas paid $1.65 million. According to a February 18 Bloomberg News article, "The couple who sold Barack Obama his Chicago home said the Illinois senator''s $1.65 million bid ''was the best offer'' and they didn''t cut their asking price because a campaign donor bought their adjacent land, according to e-mails between Obama''s presidential campaign and the seller."

[starleo146]

Discussing the purchase of the house, Corsi also writes:

The problem was that the doctor who owned the property wanted to sell the vacant lot and the house at the same time, even though the two properties were separately listed. Also, while the sellers wanted to find a buyer as quickly as possible, they did not want to close the deal until June 2005. The list price just for the home was $1.95 million, outside the reach of the Obama family, even with Obama''s reissued autobiography, Dreams from My Father, hitting bestseller lists, his U.S. Senate salary of $157,082, and Michelle''s 2005 income of $317,000 at the University of Chicago Hospitals.34

Rezko came up with a solution. His wife, Rita, bought the vacant lot at full price, permitting Obama and Michelle to negotiate buying the house for $1.65 million, a discount of $300,000 from the asking price. [Page 165-166]