Throughout this past week, I’ve been thinking much about how America was founded. There’s plenty of articles written lately on patriotism, on liberty. From Time Magazine’s cover piece to essays on Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.

If you read the great documents such as the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers, you get a sense that these men were perhaps America’s real “Greatest Generation”. They not only understood the beauty of the philosophies of Locke and Voltaire and Rousseau, but were able to translate them into action, establishing a new nation based upon freedom and liberty.

They were also amongst the most elite of their time. The wealthiest, the most educated, the most “connected”.

A study put out this week by George Washington University’s Henry Farrell, John Sides, and Eric Lawrence bring out to the surface an issue that I think is problematic for American politics and culture: the polarization of the political blogosphere. This had become more evident over the past few years as the country’s political dialogue has grown ever more coarse.

The study finds that those that participate in the political blogosphere are more likely to be further to the right or further to the left, more rigid in their beliefs, less likely to engage in discussions across political ideologies and (as I have personally discovered in my own involvement on blogs) less tolerant opposing views.

I find this troublesome because their study also shows that those whose views are more tolerant, less rigid, and less idealogical are less likely to be politically involved as those who take an active participation in the blogosphere. That’s not good. Here’s why…

Read more…

I just asked a question via Twitter. And I’ll repeat it here.

Question for social media types…many complain about interference from legal dept. when it comes to social media, especially with UGC…so, are there any conferences, events, seminars, etc. that bring the two groups together to understand one another more?

Not to toot my own horn, but that’s a good question. And it’s one that needs to be answered.

Marketers are essentially in charge of defining, promoting, enhancing, and protecting the brand. Lawyers are essentially in charge of protecting the entity, the business, and, yes, the brand.

I got to thinking about this because social media strategists often, as part of their strategy, enlist, encourage, or allow a brands users to play a role in the branding. I got to thinking of a recent story involving a group of car enthusiasts putting together a picture calendar showing off their cars. They calendars were to be sold on CafePress. But there was some sort of communication screw up and it was halted I believe. Some social media strategists mistakenly blamed the car company.

But then I thought…wait…if the legal department did have reservations in this situation, is that necessarily a bad thing? Think about it….

What if one of the participants of an unsolicited consumer generated media effort has let’s say a problem. Like a police record. I mean, let’s say he’s the type of guy who could get nailed by Chris Hansen of Nightline. You know, a pedophile.

Ridiculous? If you think so, you’re missing the point. The point is that legal department and marketing departments are going to have to understand one another and work together to both reasonably promote and protect the brand through social media. Cutting edge vs. overly cautious won’t do. Lawyer potentially nixing or at least getting in the way of potentially effective programs or frustrated marketing types angrily rolling their eyes at the stupidity and interference of the legal department will only serve to stifle the brand, or, potentially worse, leave it unprotected.

I’ve been looking at the graph that Twitter has given us for candidate mentions on Super Tuesday.

null

The first thing that jumps out at me is the dominance of Barack Obama. The entire time he is the most mentioned candidate. At no time throughout the entire day is he overtaken by anyone else. What does this mean? I’m not sure. Is it because of popularity or is it because of the newsworthiness of his candidacy? Obviously, it’s some sort of combination.

What’s also interesting is the person with the second highest peak: Mike Huckabee. He’s been dissed by the mainstream media ever since New Hampshire. To me, that’s a combination of my belief that the mainstream media can’t relate to a evangelical Christian, along with the GOP delegate assignment system of winner take all. He’s done better in votes and on Twitter than most would be willing to give credit.

Hillary and McCain show no strength. That’s particularly for Clinton. You’d think she’s be mentioned more often in discussion regarding Obama. Pehaps this shows she, in comparison was a non-entity.

Here’s a telling stat that may show why:

Barack Obama has 6793 followers and he is following 6661 people.
Hillary Clinton has only 627 followers and is following 0 people.

Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nobody.

I’m not saying that this is why she is likely to lose the nomination, but I will say it does reflect an overall approach and mentality - a top-down mentality - that has just about killed her chances to be the next president of the United States.

techPresident’s got a potentially telling compilation of stats regarding overall internet activity involving John McCain’s candidacy. In short, it doesn’t bode well for the Republican frontrunner. These stats were taken before the ridiculous NYTimes story that caused an uproar.Candidate Website Traffic

Presumably, website visits show the level of interest that people have in learning more about a candidate, their background, and their stances on issues. I’d say a candidate’s site serves as the anchor of the entire online operation. Hitwise tallied the total number of visits to the three remaining GOP candidates - McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul - and divided them up percentage wise. Here’s what they got:

Huckabee 50%
McCain 26%
Paul 25%

Now let’s take a look at the how all the candidates of both parties stack up against one another:

Barack Obama 44%
Hillary Clinton 26%
Mike Huckabee 16%
Ron Paul 8%
John McCain 8%
Mike Gravel 1%

McCain has gotten half of what his now leading primary opponent is getting. He’s getting less that one-third of what Hillary Clinton is getting. And Barack Obama, his likely opponent in the general election, is getting over 500% more visits.

Read more…

While Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been trying to past Barack Obama for plagiarism for his reworking of a speech of Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick – an effort that was likely approved beforehand by the governor – Hillary Clinton herself was attempting –poorly – to co-opt a central them of Obama. YES WE CAN!! became YES WE WILL!! It failed miserably. No one went along with her chant.

Apparently, no one caught on that she was trying to lead a cheer (even thought it was obvious) or, worse, no one cared enough to go along. It’s both sad and silly. The strategy isn’t working. At least for now, her time has passed.