Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts

April 25, 2007

Hillary Clinton - a mom's perspective

For those reading this politubing blog, you may have noticed that I had not yet blogged about a pretty obvious candidate - Hillary Clinton. I mean, she's a woman, I'm a woman; she's a mom, I'm a mom; she's a wife, I'm a wife; she's an ex-first lady and a senator, I'm, ummm, not. Anyway, you would think I would relate enormously to her right? Well not so fast...

Let me start off by saying that the reason I haven't blogged in a couple of weeks was due to kids with stomach flus, spring breaks, work-related deadlines, and things like piles of laundry. Now I can imagine Senator Clinton is EXTREMELY intelligent, motivated and WAY more organized that I'll ever dream to be. But it's hard for me to relate to someone that can do so much and supposedly be on par with me. Now it may be that I have a 4 and a 1 yr old, a job, and a super motivated husband who can start his own company while still finish up his full-time UC Berkeley MBA (read "way too busy"). Maybe a few years from now when the kids are grown I'll have more time for grown-up type stuff. But right now my big plan for that time period is to sleep.

Basically we’re not at the same level. Just because she is a woman, that’s not enough to win me over. I think all of the candidates are intellectually capable of understanding where I stand regardless of gender. Of course I would love to see a woman running things and would fully support that. But other than say childbirth (which in my opinion should not be a political issue), most of the political issues that are important to me I would say should be gender neutral. In my opinion, the focus of finding the best presidential candidate needs to be on figuring out who is the most competent, well-intentioned, common-sense type candidate.

So wiping that slate clean, what is my take on Senator Clinton? My first reaction I would have to say is that she's a bit staged. Is that a problem or important? Maybe not, we can't all be Bill. Doing politubing due diligence I’ve checked out many of her YouTube videos. She has the Hillcast videos. Normally I think this is a good approach, but frankly, I tuned out many of her Hillcast videos as they somehow seemed insincere. Maybe because the setting looks like a Phillips soft-light commercial. This notion of “keeping the conversation going”, c’mon- you’re in a mansion with a camera crew and speech writer. Now meet me at Starbucks and we then you can talk to me about keeping the conversation going. Just don’t call it what it’s not. This isn’t some kind of video conference thing. Jab aside, I am glad she’s in the Senate. She is truly a very smart woman with conviction and the means to get things done. That’s a good thing. My favorite Hillcast video is her video on getting troops out of Iraq (apparently others think so too, it’s her most viewed). So I don’t fully agree with all of her plans and actions, for example, I don’t think she should polarize the issue and say “All Democrats should ban together to force the president to change course…” (what about the Republicans). But in this video she’s not playing the female card and is discussing plans for a topic on which she has strong opinions. But in general, the Hillcast keep the conversation going videos, zzzzz. Take a look yourself.



Now watching the videos where she speaks to a crowd, those I felt myself more engaged. My favorite so far was the Rutgers University video. I think for Hillary these are the types of venues she has a better chance of shinning. Maybe not surprisingly I see a trend that her recent videos are more of this type and less “Hillcastish”. Now, I am always annoyed at watching politicans playing up their specific audience (the Red Hat Ladies video) but I fully understand you don’t win the Presidency by simply stating exactly what you believe, damn be all that don’t follow. So OK, I’ll tolerate. In the Rutgers video, Senator Clinton was her eloquent self and because it was set up to be a presentation in front of a crowd, it didn’t feel as contrived as the Hillcast videos. The part of about “Dare to Compete”, that was good. Unfortunately especially because she is a woman, I think she’s going to have to be very, very careful how she presents herself. But in my humble opinion, she needs to just be herself. Don’t overplay the woman/mom/wife card, just be yourself, pretend your gender doesn’t matter. Take a look at Rutgers…

April 6, 2007

Election 2008 First Quarter Fundraising Results

OK, so now I know why I was getting email bombarded by the Presidential 2008 hopefulls all last week (Hillary Clinton was on a ROLL!). The first quarter campaign finance deadline was looming and now their TubeMogul viewership peak trend makes sense to me, duh...

Now I can't find a cool politubing video explaining the results. If anyone has one, comment away. But this is my take:

Hillary Clinton (What Hill?): $26 million
Barack Obama (Barack oBAM!a): $25 million
Mitt Romney (Mitt I've-got-tons-of-roMONEY): $23 million
Rudy Giuliani (Rudy apparently-not-enough-jewels-IANI): $15 million
John Edwards (President McDreamy is just too fitting, isn't it?): $14+ million
John McCain (John McCan't): $12.5


The Washington Post has a good article about these campaign fundraising results.

I don't know why they need 20 gagillion dollars but if I were a betting lady (and I'm not, I always lose miserably), my money is on Barack oBAMa or Mitt roMoney. Now I am completely unqualified to pass judgment but out of curiosity I looked up who was essentially running John McCain's campaign versus Mitt Romney. My intuition told me McCain is probably using old school political network methods, and Mitt Romney has whiz-bang kid. I mean, this is the founder of BainCapital. Hello...he knows money, as my husband says "Why was it a surprise he could raise money?"

Please, do not quote me but as I understand according to Chris Cilliza from the Washington Post, John McCain's campaign man is Tom Loeffler.

I don't know if they're the same role but one of Mitt Romney's main men is Alex Castellanos. Oh, and apparently the ivory tower word for these savants is "consigliere". Doesn't that just mean "an advisor", why the heck don't they just call them advisors? They must get to wear special tights or a crown or something.

Funny thing is I see Mr. Loeffler mentioned as a consigliere but Mr. Castellanos as I think a strategist. I also read and probably just juicy unfounded gossip that Romney's campaign wants to shy away from anything France-like as they will play the card that people like Hillary Clinton want us to just become a whiny socialist country like France (ca n'est pas possible) so maybe that's why Havana boy is media-guru and Loeffler is still a consiglieremajig.

So the difference in the two:
Tom Loeffler, an ex-Texas Congressman, a lawyer and lobbyist, and obviously politically tremendously well connected. Maybe he's not anymore after this week, who knows. I read this as “old school”.

Alex Castellanos - Media mogul-type man. Not sure how to read this since he’s been the political go-to guy for many but sounds FLASHY to me.

But way more interesting than Castellanos (for me at least) is Mitt Romney's apparent use of SalesForce.com for his campaign fundraising toolset:

Salesforce.com gets into politics by ZDNet's Dan Farber -- Mitt Romney’s Republican presidential campaign has raised about $20 million so far in 2007 with the help of “com-Mitt” software for interacting (fundraising) with donors. The activity is otherwise known as CRM, customer relationship management, and salesforce.com's on demand platform is the foundation of com-Mitt. Not one to miss a new, and timely, market opportunity, [...]


Now THERE's a businessman for ya!

Anyway, in my peace and love world, I would collect all the money that the candidates who don't stand a chance collected (why on God's green earth did MORE candidates just make a bid for the presidency??? ), plus the extra gazillion these guys collected, and maybe help pay off our national debt, help our little planet with its fever-thing, make sure our kids don't come butt-last in all areas of education, or make a really pretty park somewhere.

I'm probably not going to be anyone's consigliagagaga anytime soon…

March 31, 2007

Presidential Candidates - 2008 "Final Four"

Here is some analysis that's helping me narrow my March Madness Final Four, er, Six...

TubeMogul Stats
Republican YouTube views March 2007

(I know, numbers are hard to see, basically Romney was ahead and the total views of any given day of the three combined was around 9K - nothing to write home about I tell ya)


TubeMogul Stats
Democrats YouTube views March 2007

Barrack so out skews this graph it seems just plain silly. TechPresident had thought something was going crazy with his views so don't quote me on these...but if it's right, wow...



So I'm on the phone with my dad telling him I've started a blog (a "wha?"). Anyway, I tell him it's about watching online videos about the Presidential candidates. And he says, "You mean the 2008 election, you have a ways to go no?" Then I say, "Well, not really, you know how now you go into Target right after 4th of July and you start seeing Halloween stuff with the Christmas tree lights in the back? It's like that". I absolutely know where he's coming from but I have to tell you, it's way too late if you start thinking of this stuff by that time. You should basically be in your "Final Four" mode right now if you want to matter diddly squat.

I'm in California and they moved the primaries to I think February. Here you also have to be registered for the party (as I remember) to even be able to vote for a candidate for that party. So I figure I have to do my homework, pick a candidate, register for that party so that I can even vote him/her to be a candidate and then maybe sit back and relax. Because at least in this state, as much as we would like to consider ourselves individuals, the Nov 2008 election, is not as critical the "before" stuff. This notion needs to be more publicized I think. People are just waiting before the final exam and frankly, it's usually too late.

With that in mind, unless I see something just truly amusing, I'm going to stick to watching the top six candidates and what they have to say. No doubt someone is going to argue with me but really, cmon, I'll be the first to be seriously amused if this isn't the list (in no order): Dems: Clinton, Edwards, Obama. Reps: Giuliani, Romney, McCain. I'm just guessing of course.

Fun little heavy hitters Republican vs Democrats comparison, Romney vs. Obama (it's not even fun watching this...). Now keep in mind, Romney has 66 videos posted as of today and Obama has 26.

March 30, 2007

ParkRidge47 explains "Vote Different" ad

Two great videos explaining how ParkRidge47 (a.k.a. Phil de Vellis - my very first blog post, awww) happened. Truly, truly fascinating. I wrote Phil telling him he seriously left a legacy. Sure, things like this may be fleeting, but he will no doubt be referenced for a very long time I predict. I also told him he was like the Kevin Bacon of politubing. For anyone involved in politubing or its outskirts, you'll figure out what degree you are away from him. Hmm, I'm going to look him up in LinkedIn, this just keeps getting more fun.

ParkRidge47 explains "Vote Different" ad:



YouTube's news and politics editor Steve Grove interviews Phil de Vellis on the making of "Vote Different"




What he says about politubing's affect on the political homefront, it's like I'm talking. When my (very smart already by the way) 4 year old gets to be of voting age, there will be no townhalls. She'll just make a 2 minute video of what she fervently believes in and why, and I will expect that she also provides thoughtful consideration on how it could be solved (otherwise it's just whining) and the candidates will be having to schedule time to watch the million videos the citizen's create so they truly get to know what is important to the country and some really good ideas on how to solve things. THAT would be cool.

March 22, 2007

Unveiling the father of politubers - Vote Different video

Well the guy who will no doubt be named the father of "politubers" has been unveiled (term coined by TubeMogul). "Phil" from Blue State Digital created a very cool YouTube video in wich he did a mash-up of a 1984 Apple ad and Hillary Clinton with Obama as the go-to guy.

Hillary 1984 Video


He did this on a Sunday from his home (read "watch out big ad agencies who charge the big bucks for these things). Blue State Digital is responsible for creating the Obama 08 web site I believe. He didn't mean to represent his company but that's a side point (he got fired from there because of this).

What we should all be reading from this is what the Internet has provided for the people. Joe Shmo really can influence now. Probably not for too long, Darwinism has a way of working its way into these things but for now, "Politubing" has exploded. Right now it's uncharted, feisty, frivolous, sometimes ridiculous, usually entertaining, chaotic and fun. Just like the wild west should be. YouTube viewership for Obama official video campaign has registered over 1 million views. Will YouTube be so influential as deciding who the next President will be? Crazy. Rest assured, by the next presidential campaign, politubing will become an art mastered by the few. So for now, let the people decide what the course of this chaos should be.