John McCain

by Seth Pearce, Living Liberally

Here at Living Liberally, we want to give you all updates on the current goings on in the blogosphere and progressive movement. That's why, today, we're giving you the newest news on one of the blogosphere's most important tools: the Googlebomb. From WikiPedia.

A Google bomb (also referred to as a 'link bomb') is Internet slang for a certain kind of attempt to influence the ranking of a given page in results returned by the Google search engine, often with humorous or political intentions. Because of the way that Google's algorithm works, a page will be ranked higher if the sites that link to that page use consistent anchor text. A Google bomb is created if many sites link to the page in this manner.

For example, if I had wanted to Googlebomb, Laughing Liberally comedian Lee Camp, and associate him with a negative phrase, I would write something like "What a loser?" Where the word "loser" is linked to Lee's site Lee Camp. This would make Lee's site more likeley to come up under a google search of "loser". But we wouldn't want to do that because Lee Camp is not a loser, and is in fact a very awesome comic.

This trick was used in 2004 with George W. Bush's campaign site and the words "miserable failure." But according to WaPo's campaign blog The Trail this method of googlebombing might be done for:

That's right, the online behemoth best known for its search engine says that it has rejiggered its legendary and proprietary technology so that online efforts by bloggers to manipulate its top-secret search algorithm to create cheeky, offensive and decidedly off-message answers to searches will no longer work.

"It was fun" while it lasted, said Rick Klau, a member of the Google strategic partner development content acquisition team, at a search engine optimization training session for political bloggers in Washington, D.C., this afternoon. But, he said, "Google bombs don't work anymore."

...
That doesn't work anymore, said Klau, because the company today can spot these swarms and neutralize their effect. "We are far more perceptive when it comes to these link swarms that show up in a matter of hours or days," said Klau.

Fortunately, our good friend Chris Bowers over at Open Left has an answer:

So why haven't bloggers stopped trying to game the system? Work-arounds may be one reason. So might the increasingly sophisticated nature of today's Google bombs -- what Open Left's Chris Bowers calls a "2.0 version of the Googlebomb" -- where the goal is to influence the search rank of a slew of negative news articles about a politician rather than tie his name to a keyword.

...
As Bowers explained it, "What I'm doing isn't a Google bomb." It's a much harder to detect effort "to alternately optimize John McCain" in the Google search engine rankings, by linking his name to nine mainstream new organizations's stories that raise questions about the GOP presidential contender.

So, the blogosphere triumphs over the Google once again!

John McCain, John McCain, John McCain, John McCain, John McCain

Guess what? John McCain is old, doesn't understand (but is aware of) the internet, and has little to no appeal to young voters. Latinos don't admire him for his stand on immigration, and despite being a veteran, the military thinks he's not concerned enough with the real needs of the troops. But don't take it from me:

• PEW Hispanic Center reports that McCain is losing the Latino youth vote (25% of the Latino population) 73 - 16%.
• Army Times smacked him down for suggesting that we ration health care for Veterans.
• CNN reports that McCain is having trouble connecting to young voters, and young Republicans agree.
• The Boston Globe says McCain is internet-illiterate.
• Even Perez Hilton agrees.

McCain campaign response:

The McCain campaign said it plans to increase the senator's presence on sites such as Facebook and MySpace in addition to the candidate making appearance on shows that appeal to younger viewers -- such as "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart," "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" and the "Late Show With David Letterman."

Newsflash. John McCain has been on the Daily Show more than any other politician, he has a Facebook page, and he was on Saturday Night Live recently. It's not that he doesn't have a presence in these venues already. It's that no one cares because he is wrong on the issues.

Was John McCain Abducted by Aliens?

Is it just me, or has John McCain disappeared off of the face of the planet?! I've only seen him in the news a couple of times over the last couple of weeks. Is it possible that the media is showing us old stock footage to hide the fact McCain was captured by aliens?

I'm serious. Am I the only one that has noticed that McCain has fallen off the radar ever since since Jesse Jackson threatened to cut Obama's balls off? I am starting to get worried that the Republican candidate might actually be in a secret intergalactic prison somewhere. I've never been captured by aliens, but I am assuming it's pretty damn scary, even for a dude that spent time in a POW camp.

At first I was just thinking that media was just being super biased and didn't want to show his mug on television. After all, I am sure that their ratings drop to the floor faster than the dancers in a 2 Live Crew video when ever he gets on the screen. But then I started noticing that McCain says the same thing over and over again in every interview and press conference. I am betting they just went to the vault to dig up some old tapes of McCain so that we don't start to get all scarred and stuff. I am not sure if anyone has ever polled alien abduction, but I am betting it would poll pretty poorly.

Maybe the good progressives over at MoveOn.org will start a petition or something that will force officials to tell us the truth. I would really hate to have to fight aliens. At the end of the day I am too busy playing Sim City and The Sims for my life to turn into a damn Will Smith movie.

Bumped. I'm not sure I agree (see my comment), but it's an interesting question. --Mike

Yesterday, while standing in line at my bank (to get some quarters, because, well, why else would I actually need to consult a bank teller?), I heard the familiar & eerie voice of the presumptive Republican nominee. The voice was coming from the two televisions above the bank windows, which are constantly tuned to CNN, & from that voice I heard something like this:

"I would rather lose an election & win a war ... Barack Obama would rather win an election & lose a war ..."

(The statement was followed, of course, by that creepy smile, which flashes as embarrassingly as an "applause" sign above a studio audience.)

This line of argument (or rhetoric) is an example of imprecise thinking for a number of reasons, the most obvious of which is that, in the context of Iraq, the clear dichotomy between winning & losing is not evident. Also, another less obvious, but still paramount, fact to understand before launching into a tirade about anyone "wanting us to lose", is that, technically, we already won the war.

The War on Iraq (or the "Iraq War", or "the war for the liberation of Iraq") was executed masterfully by Coalition forces (led by the American military) in 2003. We invaded (on 20 March 2003) & toppled Saddam's Ba'athist in something like 26 days, with Baghdad falling on 9 April 2003, & the invasion declared "over" on the 15 April. & while "Mission Accomplished" was some sort of cruel hyperbole, it was not inaccurate to say we had achieved, militarily, what the Bush Administration had set out to do. (Here, I'm trying to suspend my understanding that, for all intents & purposes, we were probably lied into this war, & that we should have been focusing on al Qaeda, etc., but, you know ...)

Then came the occupation & the attempt to set up a stable, democratic, peaceful Iraq with the ability to defend herself, principally, from insurgents, many of which were former Ba'ath Party members, as well as members of the military who were purged during "Jerry" Bremer's de-baathification. Ostensibly, while military operations are still going on in Iraq (though the "surge" may have ended), it is not precise (nor is it accurate) to use terms like "winning" or "losing" or "victory" or "defeat" with regards to the situation ... All we have are benchmarks, or key attributes, that we hope the Iraqi Republic can attain to someday. I hope they can, honestly, so something good can come out of this ill-conceived conflict.

The question is, & this election will be a referendum on this, what is the best road, now, for Iraq to follow in order to become able to govern & defend herself, to promote employment, modernization, religious pluralism & moderation, & to be a stable, democratic model for other countries in the region? (Although, I must admit, I am skeptical that what has been termed "Jeffersonian democracy", including ensuring the basic freedoms we cherish in this country, can ever take root there, but I'd like to be proven wrong ...)

My feeling is, when our troops withdraw, Iraqis will stand up & take ownership in each of these areas, & not the reverse. They've already told us they want us out. Now (& this, I think, tends to be Obama's view) this will not mean total disengagement from Iraq, but we do need to take an American face off of this occupation, & replace it with one that is less detested in the region & specifically in that country.

Is that "losing", or "admitting defeat"? Absolutely not - it's intelligently & purposefully trying to find a decent & honorable end to conflict that probably should have never been waged in the first place. It's also, incidentally, a responsible way to promote Iraqi self-governance (& sovereignty) &, ultimately, stability in the region.

Bumped. --Mike

I just read Keli Goff's column on The Huffington Post called "McCain's Perez Hilton Problem". While its a fine read (repudiating John McCain's statement that he doesn't support "gay adoption", defending the notion that LGBT people can provide excellent, loving homes for children), I was a little confused at why she references, specifically, Perez Hilton (who like may other people were outraged by this admission from the presumptive Republican nominee). I thought, from reading the first few lines, she was going to argue that sites like Perez Hilton ("What Would Tyler Durden Do?", "D-Listed", the 'Gawker' sites, etc.) provide a unique opportunity to foment action against regressive policies, causes & candidates among possibly apolitical youth who may have sympathy for progressive programmes. Goff didn't end up arguing that, so I will.

Goff wrote:

"On Sunday, celebrity gossip blogger Perez Hilton (real name Mario Lavandeira) selected McCain's statement on the matter as his "Quote of the Day." The quote simply reads, "I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption." At last count Hilton's post garnered around 700 comments, some of which are blatantly homophobic, (which is ironic considering Lavandeira himself is openly gay, which begs the question: if you disapprove of gay people so much why are you visiting a blog run by one?). But for the most part, the comments -- many of which are too colorful to print here -- highlight a fundamental problem for John McCain as he tries to formulate a winning strategy for November: How to win an election decided by voters in the middle, while continuing to pander to voters on the right."

Goff is right is that McCain's previous (though probably overblown) image as a moderate &/or maverick, which attracted moderate Independents & conservative Democrats in the past, is a liability as he tries to sew up the conservative Republican base ... It's a catch-22, because the more he panders to the base, the more he losses the moderates, & vice versa.

But I digress.

Election coverage can be framed in many different ways, & increasingly we've seen the pop-culture-ization of this process, especially with the Obama candidacy, which has spawned a popular movement of young people who may have sat this one out, or simply not cared, if Dick Gephardt was running. (No offense to Dick; he's like number 3 on my list of potential Vice Presidents.) Barack's candidacy has inspired political youth, as well as those who have never been interested in politics before.

& The Obama Team, to an extent, gets this. On example: just look at the Michelle Obama PR-blitz after Barack became the nominee ... co-hosting "The View", making the cover of "US Weekly" ... In other words, reaching out to young women who are probably pro-choice, probably who have a gaggle of gay friends, & could be moved to vote if they feel the candidate (or, in this case, his wife) speaks to them on level other than health care policy positions, discussions of Iraq & banking reform.

The power of celebrity gossip rags, whether in print (US Weekly), on TV (TMZ on Fox) or online, like the aforementioned blogs, when they comment on the political matters, can be enormous. Celebrity gossip is an ascendant medium, drawing huge audiences of mostly young people, who tend to be, at least on social & cultural issues, more liberal. Comment on McCain saying he's against "gay adoption" & there's a good chance you may energize a liberal, though apolitical, young person who reads your blog to say, "Geez, maybe I'll vote for Obama ... This guy is straight-up creepy ..."

That's where I thought Goff was going ... I hope I adequately took you there.

Bumped - Kevin

Crossposted at Politics of the Common Good.

On pushback, Lee Fang posted a transcript of an interesting interview taking place on CNN. The guest was Ben Ferguson, a 27 year old right-winger. Fang describes him as "the media's go-to guy for all matters relating to young people and conservative politics." Of course, Fang also points out Ben's credentials: "He abhors MTV and popular youth culture, is a proud virgin, and routinely mocks progressive causes through his nationally syndicated talk-show and newspaper column." Let's take a look:

FOREMAN: Ben, let me ask you this question then. If you’re a young conservative and you’d like more people to support McCain, presumably, what does John McCain do at his age to reach across that gap because truly there are so many young people who I run into who say, I respect him, he’s a great guy, he’s wonderful. But he’s so different than me.

FERGUSON: I’ll be honest with you, if I’m advising John McCain right now, I would tell him to not inspire young people to come out and vote because for every one he turns out to vote for him, he’ll end up inspiring two or three other people to come out and vote for Barack Obama.

FOREMAN: Let’s not get out the youth vote movement?

FERGUSON: Yes, if you’re John McCain, I wouldn’t want to inspire young people. That’s going to get that movement vote to kick your tail. And that’s the last thing he needs to do.

Emphasis added. Well, first -- it's a good thing Ferguson is only a talk show host, because that advice is deplorable.

But let's assume Ferguson's contention that McCain should stay away from inspiring young people for fear of actually pushing more toward Obama is true (which, it very well may be). And let's bring in what we know about the connections between a healthy democracy and engaged young voters:

A healthy democracy requires that people learn, listen, dream, and work together as they unleash their collective potential to build the common good. When young people are excluded from participation in this dynamic, the potential for common good is deeply diminished. Despite a common misperception of today’s youth as self-absorbed and uninvolved, in example after example, young people ages 15 to 25 demonstrate a strong desire to engage actively in the work of building a just national and global society. This high degree of youth involvement not only develops leadership and civic skills in young people, but also adds much needed energy and perspective into community change efforts, policy debates, and governance at all levels.

With all of this in mind, isn't Ferguson's proposal indicating that a victory by McCain might not be the best thing for a democracy? My political sympathies aside, that's what I'm thinking when I read the transcript of Ferguson's statement. Choosing not to inspire younger voters goes against everything I have been taught to believe about the democratic process.

Granted, Ferguson does not play a role in the McCain campaign. But an appraisal of his campaign keeps me from thinking that McCain isn't taking some of Ferguson's advice. We know McCain exerts great energy trying to figure out the Internet, which is where young people are increasingly getting their news and information about the campaign. We know he's not put forth any plan for national service outside of the military (young voters are service all-stars). We know he's not exactly forthcoming with plans for higher education, a hallmark issue for today's youngest voters. While it's probably not that groundbreaking for many readers of Future Majority and my own blog, it would appear that McCain does indeed have a "youthiness" problem.

One more thing about Ferguson, though. When pushback's Lee Fang quoted the transcript, he cut out one of the most annoying and grating things for me to hear or read from any political observer -- something that immediately erases any ounce of credibility they may have had with me.

FERGUSON: There were more young people that voted but it was the same percentage of the overall vote because overall, more people voted in the last election than the one before it. So I don't know if they're necessarily going to show up. They thought they were going to show up for John Kerry and they didn't.

The young people, do they have an opinion? Yes. Does that mean they're going to go vote? I don't think so.

Ben Ferguson, meet Michael Connery:

Turnout vs. Share: There's a sub-theme to be aware of here as well. There are two ways of measuring how a demographic performs during an election. These are turnout and share of the electorate, and the media has a hard time distinguishing between the two. Turnout means the hard number of people participating. In the IADP data above, 4,836 18-24 year olds caucused. That's the hard turnout number for that age demographic. You'll also notice that the data states that 18-24 year olds made up 3.9% of caucus goers in 2004. That's the share of the electorate for that age demographic. These two numbers can present very different pictures of demographic performance. The 2004 general election provides us with an excellent example.

In 2000, 18-29 year olds made up 17% of the electorate. That was their share of the electorate. In 2004, 18-29 year olds once again comprised 17% of the electorate. The "logical" conclusion is that the youth vote did not increase, and that was what the media reported on November 5th, 2004. Of course, this was wrong. If one examined the actual turnout numbers, it quickly became apparent that there was a huge increase in youth participation. In fact, 4.3 million more 18-29 year olds turned out in 2004 than did in 2000. That increase didn't appear in the share of the electorate data because turnout increased among all age demographics. In order to get a sense of what happened with young voters this year, we'll need to examine not only their share of the electorate, but also the hard turnout numbers. The media missed this in 2004, and the campaigns and youth advocates will all be checking this data to make sure that the campaigns and press don't make the same mistakes twice.

Ferguson can't distinguish between share and turnout. Just because many other people turned out to vote in 2004 outside of the 18-29 age bracket does not mean those aged 18-29 should be criticized and believed to be a disappointment yet again. The truth that Ferguson and other ignorant political observers want to ignore is that there is a trend toward increased voting among youth (which I think is related to Ferguson and McCain's avoidance of this demographic).

So what does all of this mean?

1.) Ben Ferguson might just have a career in the "vast right wing conspiracy," given his ability to repeat untruths and act like he knows what he's talking about.

2.) John McCain, if he is pursuing a "youth avoidance" strategy like it currently appears, would ostensibly be running counter to healthy democratic values.

It's been a while since we've posted any polling data on the site. In part, that's because the primaries are over and in part because so few polling outfits conduct good polls focusing on young voters.

I don't know about you, but it's left me jonesing for some good polling data. So I thought I'd pass along this recent poll from Quinnipiac, which spotlights the role young voters are playing in keeping Sen. Obama ahead of John McCain (emphasis mine):

With commanding leads among women and young voters and near unanimous support from black voters, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has a 50 - 41 percent lead over Arizona Sen. John McCain, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll of likely voters released today.

Independent voters split 44 - 44 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Sen. McCain has a slight 47 - 44 percent edge among men voters and a larger 49 - 42 percent lead among white voters.

But black voters back Sen. Obama 94 - 1 percent, while women support him 55 - 36 percent. Obama leads 63 - 31 percent among voters 18 to 34 years old and 48 - 44 percent among voters 35 to 54, while voters over 55 split with 45 percent for McCain and 44 percent for Obama.

Lots of stuff about McCain and Obama, but also a few movement-oriented pieces as well. Enjoy.

• Barack Obama authored an op-ed in today's New York Times in which he lays out his Iraq strategy. Here's my favorite part:

  As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

  In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

• This weekend, the New York Times did a hit-piece on Obama, looking to drive a wedge between him and his youthful supporters in the media narrative. Tim Fernholz has the proper response over at Tapped. Also at the Prospect, Courtney Martin has a slightly different take on Obama's "tacking to the center."
• David Frum is the latest conservative to try to make hay about young voters supposed-support of privatized accounts for Social Security.
• The LA Times profiles Joel Flatow. If you want to bring big-name musicians into politics, apparently he's the go-to guy. Only problem, he's also one of the dudes behind the RIAA's awesome strategy of suing its fans. This sucks, big time, and it's why groups like MFA losing their funding sucks even worse. I want musicians involved in politics to support smart copyright reform, not be reactionaries advocating on behalf of a dying business model. As such, getting rid of people like Flatow and delinking the two seems pretty important.
• Rock the Vote says that 3,100 bands signed up for their DemROCKracy contest. If each band registered only 25 fans, that would be 77,500 registrations. Bad ass.
• The Hip Hop Caucus Blog has a great look at the Jesse Jackson/Obama scandal framed as a generational issue within the black community and civil rights movement.
• Finally, John McCain calls college students "spoiled children. Awesome. Here's what I say to that:

Bumped. Bergeris putting out some good stuff. --Mike

Crossposted at Politics of the Common Good.

In his inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy called on Americans to serve. Sadly, those words -- "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" -- have become cliche today. We hear them, but most of us drive right by that message of sacrifice without really pondering what it means.

Those words have faded from our collective conscience. The presidency of George W. Bush has reduced "service" to fighting bravely in a war that should never have been fought in the first place. Commentators and other bloggers have noted many a time that Americans were not asked to sacrifice once after the events of 9/11. Immediately after the attacks on our country, the Bush administration focused on Iraq rather than observing and noticing the spirit of goodwill among American citizens as well as citizens of other nations. After invading Iraq in 2003, the phrase "serving our country" was usually used with reference to joining the Armed Forces.

Even after the war had begun, the Bush administration's policies and behavior indicated a philosophy antithetical to the Kennedy call for service. With the nation mired in a mess in Iraq, President Bush never once veered from a policy of cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans, forcing the burden on those Americans barely able to get their proverbial feet under them. With the price of oil skyrocketing, President Bush chose to visit Saudi Arabia to request that oil prices be lowered rather than approach Americans and ask them to sacrifice for the American economy. This is the same man, by the way, who declared that America was addicted to oil. When a drug addict admits to an addiction and then begs his or her supplier for more, that's not responsible sacrifice -- in fact, it's not sacrifice at all.

Now, in 2008, we have two choices: a man who worked for low-income families on the south side of Chicago versus a man who honorably served the country in another war it should not have fought. Senator Obama has released a detailed plan for national service. Obama will reward college students who give 100 hours of service to their communities with a $4,000 annual tax credit for school. Obama will add 65,000 members to the military. He will also significantly expand AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps.

Turning to Senator McCain, we're left with very little.

John McCain, who's predicated his presidential run in no small part on his distinguished military record, frequently exhorts Americans — and especially young Americans — to serve their country. Despite that appeal, he has yet to offer any proposals to expand or transform national service outside of the military.

...

...The McCain campaign will not commit to releasing a plan for expanding service opportunities. A senior policy adviser said only that they are "studying options for national service." When asked why he does not have a service proposal, Pounder would only say that McCain is proud of his past support for service programs and has exhorted audiences to serve in this campaign.

While refusing to ask for a comprehensive sacrifice of the American people is regrettable when keeping Kennedy's call to service and sacrifice in mind, it's also not smart politics. The Millennial Generation will offer roughly 50 million voters in the 2008 election. These Americans have volunteered at record rates over the past few years. In fact, 60% of 15-25 year olds have volunteered or continued to volunteer on a regular basis (CIRCLE, via Future Majority). This generation's general mindset is to help, big. It's a generation of builders that are civic-minded and want to work together to build a better society, and thus far, community service has been this generation's most productive method of doing so. However, many political junkies have heard by now that Millennials are not only serving, but voting too. In the last three elections, Americans aged 18-29 have increased their voting rate and are on the verge of becoming a powerful voice in the American political dialogue. McCain may not have the internet in common with Millennials, but he'd be best-served politically to develop a civic service bond with Millennials.

The Millennial brand of service seems identical to Kennedy's: service and policy to build, with politics and elections to protect. Kennedy not only called on Americans to sacrifice; he also asked citizens -- national and global -- to hold accountable those Americans in power.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love...

Many Americans immediately link the "Ask not what your country can do" quotation with Kennedy; but they don't realize that in the same speech he offered a compact of sorts. If the American citizen will do all that he or she can do for his or her country, those of us in power will promise to maintain the same work ethic, the same ethical standards, and the same dedication to bettering the national community as the citizenry. That promise, linked with Kennedy's allusion toward sacrificing for the unknown ("a good conscience our only sure reward") is not only the national service we need, but the closest thing to patriotism I can think of.

John Edwards's statement early on in the primaries calling us to be "patriotic about something other than war" is relevant, but it's only a start. We need to build off that statement by working together in service to "the land we love." Many volumes have researched and described the connections between service and leadership; it's a pretty natural linkage. Any contender for the highest office in the United States should have a plan on restoring the patriotic duty of sacrifice and service -- not just militarily, but all throughout our society.

Let the pandering to young voters begin:

Only problem is, young voters don't consider this a voting issue and won't buy it in the face of an alternative argument from the Obama camp. But by all means, Sen. McCain, please keep trashing the social safety net.