That’s what it all is. The greater public only doesn’t grasp it – YET. They will, after a decade or so when they slowly start realizing what more or less worthless crap they’d created … air-bubbles… as kids we used soap water – nowadays we use the media “internet” and “social network” for it… what’s the difference?

I want you to ask yourself one thing however: Do you really want an administration that follows not it’s own, clear course (based on expertise, the “big picture”, political/legal necessity), but becomes prone to sway with the opinion of the mobosphere for the sake of approval? Some of histories worst atrocities were widely approved by the general populace of states, other decisions that proved to beneficial in the long run and absolutely necessary for a nation’s long-term growth were unpopular. Not to mention that these channels could be easily manipulated by various power groups (this alone means the legality of such an undertaking would be doubtful).
What about the millions of people that – even in industrialized countries – never used a computer before?

I for one want an administration that is – yes – democratically elected, is in touch with the reality of the other citizen’s of it’s country (by the check through elected representatives), adheres to the consitution, the laws, human rights – BUT is able to independently enact necessary policies without having to seek approval from every citizen.

Everything else would not be a democracy. It would be mob rule.

It is such a fundamentally bad idea that it’s hard to grasp how people could think of it otherwise.

Could anyone help me i am looking info on the PR team behing this election. As i am using it as a case study for a PR assignment. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I have a better idea. How about if Obama and his tech team, instead of being aggressive push media like moveon.org, which has almost nil genuine interactivity and user-generated content, would stop conceiving of "the 46 percent" of people to be "pushed over" and annihilated politically, but people who will in fact *push the president and his extreme leftist backers* to a more moderate position.

That's politics. That's America. That's democracy.

I have a slightly different take, however. If you view the BO Administration like any other business approaching social media, it’s not about trying to “use” social media–it’s about trying to [carefully, respectfully] take advantage of the great, unruly, unmanageable social conversation happening everywhere. Trying to control a group that persistently self-organizes, and rejects overt attempts to market to it, will lead to trouble.

i.e., it’s not about 2.Obama, it’s about You.0.

More on this: http://2ohreally.com/2008/11/its-not-20bama-its-you0/#comments

http://www.istrategylabs.com/apps-for-democracy-yeilds-4000-roi-in-30-days-for-dcgov/

Inclusion is a key element to what made their campaign work on a variety of levels.
* It brought people in
* It gave everyone some ownership
* It revealed new ways to talk
* It revealed new ways to listen
* It created a dialogue
* It created change

By golly, it created CHANGE.

In my opinion, at the heart of inclusion is social media. If nothing else other than being the vehicle to have some ‘inclusion,’ social media is one tool that helped create this change.

What you’ve done with this piece (just like others), Brian, is show how truly inclusive this whole process can be in social media – not necessarily because it has to be, but because that’s where it truly shines.

I agree that it is important to reach out to those that did NOT vote for Obama and find out why, and see how the message can get to them in a positive way. It is just as important to LISTEN as it is to disseminate.

I for one would love to see the administration embrace social and community tools to communicate with the public. I have many close friends and family member who may have voted another way had they been more connected and/or informed. This is a step in the right direction. I’m curious to see how it will pan out in terms of political socialization.

As usual, outstanding review and commentary. Thanks for all your work which seems to be perpetual

Brian – you left out two important points

* Let the man keep his Blackberry

* Ensure that the entire government knows how to use (and uses) email.

"we can not overlook the power of real world community relations combined with the reach and engagement of online social communities and networks."

"Online tools such as Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter contributed to the netting of record-breaking campaign funding and the staggering galvanization of a younger generation of first-time voters who truly made an impact and a difference."

Yet now we hear that "they" are going to drag this president back into the dark pre-networked days of the 20th century, starting with "give up the Blackberry and give up Email".

It's 2008. It's time for Change. The Internet helped make this campaign successful. How do we keep moving forward?

Ken, thank you. Standing by…

Tim, love it. That’s exactly right. “If he and his team don’t organize the network, the network will organize itself.”