understanding U.S. politics

TGIF!

2005-07-22T14:21:00.000-07:00

Bloggers and Power

2005-07-21T16:55:00.000-07:00

I know we have discussed blogger's power many times. There is not a consensus on how much political and social power do they have, but bloggers are putting weight in poilitical decisions. Today I read a washingtonpost article about Roberts nominations being in the eye of the bloggers swarm. As soon as President Bush announced Roberts as the nominee, liberal and conservative bloggers were ready to discuss the nomination. Fifty top liberal bloggers held a conference on Tuesday discussing the new nomination.

The article raises a very interesting point. This is the first Supreme Court nomination in the Internet era. We can read immediate responses from liberal and conservative bloggers sharing facts, opinion, agreeing and disagreeing. This is what democracy is all about. Also with the help of the Internet, bloggers are rallying to influence the mainstream media and direct the journalistic coverage. Is that possible? Well, we are reading, seeing and listening in the news how bloggers react to Roberts nomination, so I should say that bloggers have earned a position in the mainstream media. The positive thing I see about bloggers having influence in the mainstream media, is that many of them do not have a particular political interest.

It has been a great experience attending Phil's and Emi's class, because I have learned so much about the blogsphere and the impact they have on the media and public opinion. As I see it, good things should be copied and developing countries should start heading the path to have other voices.
A quick fact, just to let you know, while here in the United States the Senate will be approving or dissaproving Roberts nominations to the Supreme Court, in Ecuador we are trying to constitue a new Supreme Court. Ecuador has not had a Supreme Court since last April!

No post for today

2005-07-20T21:00:00.000-07:00

Internet Misuse

2005-07-19T17:30:00.000-07:00

According to this article in Info World, Internet misuse costs business $178 billion annually. This means that employees, during working hours, are using the Internet more for personal reasons than for their actual jobs. Fifty percent of the surveyed workers admitted that they used the Internet more for personal matters at work. Among workers who reported using the Web for personal reasons the most popular activities were reading the news, checking personal e-mail, online banking, travel and shopping.

After reading this article I once remembered some business article discussing Internet filters. The article discussed that Internet filters were getting very popular in the market. Companies were buying them to prevent their employees wasting time and money at their workplaces. Are Internet filters threatening the Web's freedom?
On the other hand, internet filters are very useful for parents, who are using them in their home computers to keep their children away form pornographic and violent sites. I do not know how do these filters work, but as I go over so many Internet filters advertised on the Web, I am thinking is this a kind of censorship?

Busy Monday!

2005-07-18T16:30:00.000-07:00

Big brother is watching you!

2005-07-15T14:18:00.000-07:00

There is a thin line between regulations and prohibitions, especially with the Internet. I just finished reading the report: Internet filtering in China, and I was very surprised to discover that there are societies where they see the Internet as a threat. I believe that the only explanation why governments (like China and Cuba) have filters for the media, is because they feel threatened by the information.

It reminds me of the book, 1984, by George Orwell, where everything was controlled by Big Brother. They controlled what you read, said, watched and talked. They even knew what were you thinking! I am not saying it is the same case in China, but by reading the report I realized that societies without free access to information are in great danger. These types of societies are confined to ignorance, poverty and abuses.

I do not want to compare China to a totalitarian government, but if the government is filtering information on the Internet, because it is "sensitive" then there is a problem . It is true that China is liberalizing the economy , but that is not enough for democracy. In order to have a solid democracy people have to be informed, people have to have free access to information (not to filtered information). My theory is that in developing countries, the rich class and many politicians prefer to have an ignorant working middle class. Then the government will always be able to control them. Even though this might sound as a very primitive world, it still happens in many countries.

Starvation on the Web

2005-07-13T22:29:00.000-07:00

A recent article from Time magazine exposes a terrible truth. Pro-anorexia web sites that share tips with young readers. I was scared at first when I tried accessing www.ceruleanbutterfly.com. It warns you about visiting it. But do not worry (first read the article) and you will encounter with testimonies and tips approving anorexia and explaining why it is great to be thin!! I could not believe it.

According to TIME there are approximateky 500 websites giving advices to lose weight and become anorexic. The creators are young people between 18 and 28 years old. The creator of the website that the article talks about is a 19 year old woman. In this websites you can find blogs, forums where people with eating disorders gather for support.

I know I might be out of topic, but I wanted to share this article with you all. This is one of the times when I ask myself how free does the Internet should be? I am not saying anything about censorship, but I just feel the Internet sometimes (as in this case) might be harming people. I just wanted to share this with you and read your comments.

Targeting the message

2005-07-12T23:21:00.000-07:00

About the discussion in class, on translating web sites from English to Spanish, I totally agree with Emi's view. You cannot translate literally from English to Spanish, especially when you want to target the Latino community. Spanish web sites cannot be an identical copy of an English website, the menu bar has to be changed, pictures have to different and issues have to be addressed in different ways.

It goes beyond language, it has to do with how people identify with messages. To target lesbians and gays in the U.S. probably the candidate wouldn't have to change the language in the web site, but the message should targeted to that specific community.
Even in a small country like Ecuador, with 13 million people, and 10% of the population is indigenous and speak Qechua, there is a news program that targets indigenous communities. The news program has topics that are more appealing to indigenous quechua communities. News anchor are indigenous people and the whole news program is in their language. There is nothing bad about changing languages. Indeed if you want to attract an specific audience candidates, news producers, marketing firms have to translate their messages and modify it. If not, they will fail to deliver their ideas.

How disable users access the Internet

2005-07-11T22:54:00.000-07:00

I found a very interesting article, that describes users' disabilities, which do not permit them to use the Internet. The article also explains how does web sites and computers should help users with specific disabilities. For example, Internet users who have no sight at all may use a screen reader, which reads the content of the web page. Users with partial or poor sight should be able to enlarge text on the web sites. This is a tool that should be included on web sites to make them usable for disable users.

The article demands from web sites more attention on users with disabilities. On a regular basis web sites lack tools to help disable users navigate through their pages. One might think that deaf web users are often able to access the Internet in much the same way as able-bodied people, but the article raises a very important point. What about websites that have podcasting, and audio messages? Well websites should provide subtitles or written transcripts.

There is diversity in the world. If the Internet really wants to be a blessing for democracy, then web engineers and web consultants, should look at the necessities of all users. This will make the Internet not only accessible but also usable.

Teenagers!

2005-07-08T11:24:00.000-07:00

They are always surprising me! I would have though that teenagers were experts with the Internet. I would have thought that they did not had any problems reading, scrolling, and searching. Nielsen's article raises very interesting points , especially in the analysis of why teenagers have poor performance with the Internet. According to Nielsen "teens' poor performance is caused by three factors: insufficient reading skills, less sophisticated research strategies, and a dramatically lower patience level.

I would blame the first two on the education system. Schools have indeed change their teaching procedures because of the Internet. But if teenagers are experimenting problems with reading skills and research strategies, teachers should start enforcing teenagers to develop this abilities. The third reason (patience level) I believe is innate in most of teenagers. It is very difficult to keep their attention and to keep them focus for a long period of time. Psychologists talk about "attention disorders" and "hyperactive teenagers". I believe it has to do with making web sites interesting to them.

Every group in society has to be targeted in different ways. Individuals and groups react differently to stimulus. That is why the marketing industry is changing the whole conception on targeting consumers. The Internet should not be an exception. Teenagers have their own interest and they visit certain web sites to fulfill those interests. Teens also need the Internet for school activities and they should be able to find usable, attractive web sites that will encourage them to use the Internet not only for entertainment but also as a learning tool.

Digital Divide

2005-07-07T15:39:00.000-07:00

As we have read in the Economist article and the Jenkins article, the digital divide affects race, poverty, education, and even gender. Citizens all around the world can get a computer and navigate in the WWW. However, access to the Internet is strongly correlated with income and education.

Even though we talk about the Internet being a blessing for democracy, there are many people around the world who never have had the chance to use a computer, and would not want to think that the government is discriminating against certain areas of the country by not investing in their education and technology.

For poor countries, it is not only a matter of discrimination but also a matter of funding. Unfortunately, they go together. The private sector and the government invest in areas where they know they will have some profit. They want to see profit as in money. They do not see that the most valuable profit they will have is education for their people.

I sometimes think that in some developing countries, governments are not interested in educating their people. They prefer an ignorant society, who will continue voting for whomever offers them a house, food and clothing. Some governments do not see education as an investment, so they do not bother on making the Internet accessible to everyone.

There is also another factor for digital division. I read in a recent study from Vanderbilt University, that new Internet users tend to face psychological barriers. They feel less comfortable using the Internet, less satisfaction with their Internet skills, and greater stress when navigating online. This frustrates them and makes them reject the Internet as an important tool for their daily life.

Studies assure us that the gender gap in Internet users is closing over time, but the perception persists that the gap for race is not decreasing. In Latin America, the race gap includes both black people and indigenous people. But, again, I believe it has to do with economic status and education.

In Ecuador, there are several indigenous Representatives in Congress who had the opportunity to study abroad and they are very well acquainted with the Internet. Those who did not have the same opportunity are still in their fields working the land, and not having any access to the internet. Is discrimination the only factor for the race digital gap, or does the economy of a country also play an important role?

Technology and Developing Countries

2005-07-05T23:38:00.000-07:00

The Economist article raises some important and interesting issues, that are indeed happening nowadays in developing countries. I agree that without technology, especially without the access to the Internet, poor populations cannot develop. The Internet is the window to a new world of learning, doing business and communication. Few public schools in developing countries have a computer lab, not even a pair of computers for their students (this is the case mostly in rural areas). There is the other case, where there are schools that do have computers, but there are not enough for all the students. Kids are not able to get a whole understanding of the Internet and what is even worst, teachers in public schools usually do not know how the Internet works. So it is a vicious circle.

For example in Ecuador, only 4% of the population are Internet users, from a population of 13 million people. Even though, things have started to change because of international aid and government funding, there is still a lot of work to do. I think the creation of rural telecenters is a very helpful tool for developing countries. I wouldn't agree on the premise that the creation of these telecenters is "treating the symptoms, rather than the underlying causes." It is true that illiteracy affects our countries, but I think the Internet might also be use as a tool for people to learn to read and write.

On the other hand, I do think the author has a point that promoting the spread of mobile phones is helping developing nations. I have seen that mobile movement in many countries in Latin America, where there are more than 40 million people using mobile phones. There are still many poor people that are unable to buy a mobile because they have more importance things to take care of (health, food, shelter). But mobile phones have helped in the development of Latin America. Many people who are not able to read and write and who never ended high school are using mobile phones. They use it for work, to communicate with their family in other cities and overall to be expose to technology.

The most importance point which I think the article raises is the liberation of the telecom markets. Whenever there is competition consumers are the winners. In Ecuador the liberation of the market is just starting. But that starting point has been a bless to the whole Ecuadorian population, because we were able to decide between prices, plans and phones that best suit our necessities. We have three companies that offer mobile phone services and they are battling to win the market.

Run against Bush!

2005-07-01T17:36:00.000-07:00

As we have been talking in class about Bush's campaign and how it was based on grassroots efforts, I found this website, made by a movement to defeat George Bush in 2004 elections.
I thought it was interesting because it has to do with recruiting volunteers and knocking door to door to find out who was against George Bush's reelection. They encourage citizens to start their own local "Run against Bush" campaign. They have a main headquarter and anyone who has interest can donate money and they will receive a t shirt with the logo "Running against Bush".

Maybe you all have heard about it, but it grabbed my attention because it is a way for recruiting voters for the Democrats side. Even though this movement shows that in a way a lot of people voted against Bush and not for Kerry. I just found interesting that these movement was using many strategies that Republicans used in their campaign. They encourage citizens to mobilize people in their area, and organize events in which people can jog, ride bicycles, or walk wearing the organization's t- shirts to support the movement.

America's youth are in worse shape than ever!

2005-06-30T23:06:00.000-07:00

Sorry for not writing about an in class topic, but I thought this article would be interesting. According to Time Magazine From 1974 to 2000, the percentage of overweight 6 to 11 years olds more than tripled. Also, among 9 to 13 year olds, only 39% take part in organized exercise each week. The article attributes these numbers to the TV, video games and to especially the Internet.
Children are more interested in spending time in the Internet and playing with video games than involving in outdoor activities.
As I see it, it is great for kids to be involved at an early age with computers. But also it is important, as everything in life, to have a balance. We want intelligent, challenging youth who will be able to develop mentally but also physically. A question that I raise: is the same happening to teenagers and grownups? Are we forgetting to maintain our body healthy because the Internet is consuming our time?

The right to vote!

2005-06-29T12:40:00.000-07:00

I can't believe the video we watched yesterday in class! How is it that people want to vote and they have all of those big, huge problems to do it. I agree with some of my classmates. Voters should be responsible for asking, reading, informing themselves about the election process. On the other hand, parties and people encharged of elections are responsible for helping their voters and giving them the tools to know how, where and when to vote. The act of voting is the only of way of preserving democracy, and it can't be spoiled in the way we saw yesterday.

I was impressed, surprised , also terrified to see the mess and the chaos in those precints. It is unbelievable that voters had to wait three and four hours to vote. Also it is crazy that for a precint of 1,100 people only three machines were available. Who is in charge of this? If a country like the U.S. wants its citizens to vote, so make their lives easier!!! And it doesn't have to do with technology, budget, intelligence or anything like that. The process could be much better if there was organization.

I though that in Latin America we were very disorganized. But maybe our voting system can be an example. Unfortunately, in Ecuador the vote is not optional. Everyone has to vote, it is a demand, which I do not agree with, but that is another issue. We have a Institution (The Supreme Tribunal of Elections) they are in charge of the elections across the country. Prior to election day (which by the way is always a Sunday, where no one has to go to work) voters can consult via Internet, phone and in specific places in the city (like mall, schools, universities) where do they have to vote. As voters we get inform on the county we are register, the precint even the booth number where we have to vote. Until here it is responsibility from the voter to get acquainted with that information.

Unfortunately, in Ecuador, the election process lacks of technology. But that doesn't disturbs the process. The precints are open from 7am to 530pm. People vote on papers! Yes, I know you might be thinking about fraud, but until know there has not been one election where fraud has been proven. The precints have people everywhere that guide you inside the building to get to your booth. In Ecuador 8.4% of the population is illiterate and more than 10% is indigenous (not all of them speak Spanish). So, when they arrive to the precint they are lost in space, so guess what do they do? They ask!

As a reporter I have covered the elections and I have never seen anything like I saw yesterday in the video Emi presented. Of course I do not want to generalize, every precint, county, state is different from each other. But if a country like the U.S. which is always talking about democracy, is not protecting the citizens and encouraging them to vote, then what should we think? You have to start cleaning the mess in your own house. You have to improve the election process, you have to encourage citizens to vote and not disappoint them as we saw yesterday. They want to vote, give them the tools to do it!!

Volunteers are the force!

2005-06-27T22:38:00.000-07:00

As I see it Bush's campaign was a success in recruiting volunteers. I just read the article The Multilevel Marketing of the President and I conclude that his pyramid strategy and the grassroots efforts were essential winning factors for his presidential race. I read another article, Bush grassroots campaign attempts to recruit students, in which the author mentions the emphasis Bush's campaign made on recruiting volunteers and voters. The Republican campaign understood the importance of targeting small counties, that where left behind by Democrats. Also they focused on young people, the article states that "two of the first 10 national grassroots initiatives launched by the Bush-Cheney campaign have targeted young voters, a tribute to the commitment the campaign has to engage young voters in the political process of the country."

I am not a very big fan of the Republican Party, but I admire the way the build their campaign. I believe politicians should focus more on the common voters. Sometimes it is said that one vote won't make a difference but one, plus one, plus one will definitely make a difference in the candidates voting record. Candidates have to pay more attention, to the small cities, to the rural neighborhoods, to the far away counties, here is where they might find victory.

In places where technology is not available, where computers are not available, where even telephone lines do not exist, (believe me in developing countries there are places that do not even have electricity) the candidates should implement a strong grassroots team with the community. Building leadership among the people, encouraging them to recruit supporters and making them part of the team (captain precints) will assure the candidate's victory. In most of the countries in Latin America and Africa political strategies are based on door to door campaigns. Technology is use for the big cities, but if the candidate is not able to reach the voters, by mail, phone, or internet, he/she has to find a way to spread his message. The candidate has to lean on the community, they will spread the message in person. I know it sounds like an old strategy, but if they have work in the past why shouldn't they keep trying them? The Republicans are a great example of using technology as well as old strategies, and for them it worked.

Incompetence!

2005-06-24T13:57:00.000-07:00

It is hard for me to imagine that such an important campaign , as the Kerry campaign for President, would have had so many failures. It is not only James Verini who writes about the incompetence of Kerry's campaign. Tony Coehlo, former Gore campaign chairman, described it as a chaos, in a online article in CBS News.

Coehlo states that, no one was in charge and "you have these two teams that are generally not talking to each other. I was not in the United States when the presidential campaigns were working. But I am really surprised that there was (in Kerry's campaign) lack of communication between campaign managers, staffers and volunteers. Also, according to Coehlo, calls and emails for the Kerry campaign were not immediately returned, and that was very bad for the image of the campaign. People tend to lose interest about the candidate when this happens.

It is also sad to read Verini's article and discover that many people involved in Kerry's campaign, were really Bush haters. That means they were working for Kerry not because they truly believe he was the ideal candidate, they just wanted Bush out of the White House. It is like if there was no choice, so you have to choose the less of the evil. Did Americans really felt that way?

This reminds me of a many elections in Ecuador, when we have felt the same way. In our elections, we have two rounds. In the first one we have like 10, 12 candidates running for presidents and then the second round only has the final two. In that stage is when we confront the reality between choosing the less of the evil. Either the rich man, who owns many corporations of the extreme left, or the ex military who was the protagonist of a coup. Though decision eh? For the last three elections it has been the same story, voting not for someone, but against someone. This type of vote damages the real meaning of democracy.

Offline and Online Campaigns

2005-06-23T17:47:00.000-07:00

The article by Frank E.Watkins clearly shows how synergy works. I always remember when Emi talks about synergy between online and offline campaigns. Watkin's article explains exactly how a candidate's campaign should work. Jesse Jackson's campaign was focused in winning and they did. They used technology in a effective way and they also worked hard in door to door campaign.

I believe that small campaigns should use all the technology they can afford. But they should also put close attention to offline strategies. In countries where few people have access to the Internet, offline strategies are the most effective for winning a campaign. Candidates visit each house (door to door) and in person they explain their positions on certain issues and their campaign plan. They receive feedback from the electorate and they are able to perceive certain realities and problems that from the Internet are difficult to see.
On the other hand, the online campaign that Jackson managed was very efficient. His volunteers and strategists were all involved in the online campaign. They applied the technology they had, to search for voters and consolidated a mailing lists. With the mailing lists they approached the voters not only to ask for their vote, but also to get them involved with community issues.

Another point that grabbed my attention from this article was the acronym GOTV. This is the first time I read about it. That is because in Ecuador the vote is obligatory. Candidates do not have to put any effort in GOTV operations, because either like it or not, we have to vote. Personally I think the vote should be optional because it makes people aware of the power the vote has. If it is obligatory citizens do not see the importance of it. They just go to the polls and that is it. No participation, no commitment, no nothing and that is how democracy becomes unstable. But that is another story.

Podcasting

2005-06-22T02:59:00.000-07:00

I was doing some research on Podcasting and Wikipedia has certainly some interesting information. Podcasting became popular just a year ago, and it was largely used for audio files. The term "podcasting" , comes from the terms "iPod" and "broadcasting" and it is used a as a synonym for "audioblogging" or weblog-based amateur radio.
Politicians have not taken yet advantage of podcasting, which I believe it is very useful for campaigns. Yesterday it was the first time I heard the word podcasting and I started to think of the impact this type of technology will have in future political races. I believe it is very important to hear candidates discussing all types of issues. Podcasting is a great resource because you do not have to wait for an interview in a specific channel or radio station. With podcasting as we saw yesterday, we just need a click and we can hear and even see them, whenever we want to.
I do agree with some classmates, that the production of Edward's videos on line were terrible. On the other hand, it is great to know that former candidates (like Edwards) are using podcasting to deliver their ideas to the public. Citizens should be encouraged to participate in podcastings, asking questions and demanding answers from the candidates. Podcasting helps the candidate and the community to interact. Now, as I see it, it is not only about the Internet and the new world that it has showed us. It is about all sort of tools that technology is presenting us and we should use them to preserve democracy!

The media is fracturing

2005-06-20T22:35:00.000-07:00

According to former White House press secretary, air Fleischer, the media is fracturing into more choices and more diversity. In his book, Taking the Heat, he analyzes the changes that have occurred over time with the media. He states that networks have lost viewers as well as newspapers are losing readers. I believe that is totally true, especially within the new generation. Young people do not buy a newspaper to read, they have all the information and several newspapers at once in the Internet. So why bother? TV, radio and newspapers have been losing power since the Internet arrived. Younger people are turning to the web and to blockers for news and for immediate reactions about certain issues. TV and newspapers are too slow for the Internet.

According to Fleischer, "the immediacy of the Internet and cable news has changed the way all White House reporters do their jobs-for better and for worse". That statement, I believe, is completely true. As a broadcast journalism, it takes a couple of minutes to be on air. As a newspaper writer it takes a whole day to get your story on front page. But if you work as a online newspaper writer you will have your story published immediately. The Internet is winning in time and in content also. Once the story is up, immediate responses appear in blocs, forums etc. Yes, definitely the Internet has changed the way reporters do their jobs.

But the immediacy of the Internet is also a problem for journalists. Not only because the Internet beats broadcasting and newspapers in time, but writers and broadcasts reporters have lost the possibility of analyzing news more in depth. They are so worried on giving the news first and quickly that they have forgotten that analysis is also necessary. Like Fleischer states: "the way journalist do their job has changed-for better or for worst".

Please thank your supporters!

2005-06-19T21:55:00.000-07:00

The least candidates can do is thank their supporters. It is almost impossible to believe that an email respond from a campaign to a supporter does not has the words thank you! But as in the example in Winning Campaigns Online there are indeed candidates that forget to say thank you. I would think that the "best strategy" to lose a supporter is to write plain, death emails after they have suscribed, donate or volunteer for a campaign. Emails respond should have a clear, short message. Make it personal and it will have more success. And please, write THANK YOU!

Junk mail is a headache!

2005-06-19T08:18:00.000-07:00

People are just tired of receiving junk mail! According to Jupiter Media Matrix, a New York research firm, Americans received an average 440 spam messages in 2000, 571 in 2001 and can expect 1,479 by 2006. I would have think that the numbers were going to be larger, but still is terrible to see your email box full of junk mail. People are so annoyed by junk mail that there are websites which present several tips to avoid them.
I totally agree with Emi and Phil in Chapter 14, people should get the opportunity to opt out from a candidate's mailing list in order to avoid problems with junk mail. It might be the case that they are not interested anymore in what a candidate has to say, and they deserve the chance of unsuscribing.

Blogs to save the country

2005-06-17T01:58:00.000-07:00

I just learned from a newspaper back in my country that the President and his cabinet have created blogs to communicate with citizens. In their posts they asked for ideas and community participation. According to the President this is a way through which Ecuadorians will have the opportunity to express their ideas. Since Ecuador has a new government which is not still stable, the government is asking for help. They are doing it via blogs!!!

Are they really that powerful?

2005-06-16T23:45:00.000-07:00

While reading the articles on newsletters about Bush and Kerry I asked myself are email newsletters really that powerful? By this I mean if they really have a direct impact on voters? I think that people are tired of opening their mails and having to deal with so much junk. I am not very sure about newsletters"offering a direct line to such every-day influencers around the country." Yes they are indeed a direct line to your daily mail, but I am not sure if they have enough power to influence the electorate.
On the other hand, if you suscribe to your candidate's website is because you are really interested in it, so you will definitely read the email newsletter. If there is so much junk that arrives to the mail, candidates have to make sure that their newsletters are able to caught their electorate's attention. I am not a Bush's fan but I do agree with his last minute strategy. Nielsen's article states that Kerry bombarded his supporters with newsletters asking for money donations. I do not believe that is a good strategy and I bet many supporters started deleting Kerry's emails. People do not like to feel that they are important to their candidate only because of money. According to Nielsen's analysis, Kerry's last minute strategy looked for donations and not for a vote. Terrible mistake!!!
On the other hand, Bush's strategy had a lot of impact. He asked for the people's vote. In his last week newsletters he encouraged citizens to vote. I believe that when people feel important for their candidate there is a better response.
Finally, I had a look at the screenshots of the campaigns that Emi posted, and I felt that Dean's volunteer screenshot grabs attention. The introduction is very personal and he has a clear message that invites people to participate in his campaign. You feel welcome. Kerry's and Bush's interfaces are very cold. They go straight to the point which is not bad, but is always pleasant for the electorate to feel that their candidates really need their support. Each supporter does not wants to feel as another email in the candidate's data base. Is the candidate's strategist task to personalize the relationship between candidate and supporter. Kerry as I see it fail to do it with his newsletters.

Date.com

2005-06-15T17:56:00.000-07:00

So let's forget about blogs for a moment and lets write about dating. Yes, dating. According to Time Magazine online dating is a $500 million industry. But it is not only the Internet that is making profits with dating, is also cell phone services. You can find all kind of services with your cell phone that will guide you to your soul mate.
But that's not all, Comcast Cable customers can watch video profiles and then log through hurrydate.com to contact the one you found attractive. There are plenty of resources you can use to find a date, friend, girlfriend or boyfriend.
But I ask myself a question, are we really that desperate and that lonely? Yes, technological dating is making profits but how is people dealing with the idea that the Internet and the cell phone will be the savior when searching for company. Technology has help in many things, science, jobs, industry etc.. But in our personal lives has it really helped?