My friend Zeb decided to create a special video that shows how I’m an up and coming candidate for president. I must admit that the email I got from him was pretty compelling, with the following vague text:

Hey Amanda,

I went on this online community thing and everyone was talking about you… what is going on? There’s even a video about it on News3Online. www.News3Online.com

Let me know,
Zeb

and the linked video was fairly well done, but a bit long. I’m still not sure exactly who did this, or why…

Ken Auletta’s article on Google in this past week’s issue of The New Yorker is worth a read for a couple of reasons:

• It goes into depth about Google’s increasing involvement with politics (net neutrality, lobbying, etc.)
• It talks about an elegant concept of “crumbling cookies” that Google has been experimenting with in response to an increased concern regarding privacy and longevity of personal data online.
• It gives an inside view on how Sergey, Larry and Eric work together to drive the corporate strategy for Google

I was checking my Gmail account today when a little text ad appeared on the top of the page:

I rarely click through on ads that I see, text or banners, but for some reason this one caught my attention, so I clicked through to see a site that is selling two children’s books, one titled Why Mommy is a Democrat and one titled Why Daddy is a Democrat.

Here is an example of one of the pages from the books:

I guess I’m a skeptic at heart, but when I first took a look at the site I thought surely it must be some Republican joke targeted at Democrats, like those books that explain why Mommy or Daddy is gay. But apparently these are simply children’s books about being part of the Democratic Party.

I still think it is weird that we need books that explain politics in this way to children (and it definitely reeks a bit of discomforting propaganda - it assumes a universal underdog stigma is attached to being a Democrat, something I’d expect more of someone writing a children’s book about the Green Party, for example), but I definitely give props to the author for his creative use of Google AdSense. I clicked through.

2008 will certainly be a big year for politics in the US, and potentially will include one of the most important elections we’ve seen in a long while. Everyone is wondering just how powerful of a role the Internet will play in this election, and how much in advertising dollars will be spent online to back politicians. And all the major networks and online players are starting to get involved as well, from YouTube/CNN debates to Yahoo/Huffington Post/Slate Debates to now ABCNews Facebook’s debates that will be airing live on TV and online this weekend. A couple things seem striking to me about all of this:

• Suddenly people have realized that these network hosted debates are exclusionary. Ron Paul has been left out of the Fox debate this Sunday and candidates are also excluded from ABCNews/Facebook debates as well. This makes sense from an executional POV, as certainly it is difficult to host a meaningful debate with an unwieldy number of potential candidates, but it also is notable because the Iowa Caucus hasn’t even started tonight, and already, candidates with low polls (i.e. no votes have been cast yet) are getting pushed out of the race. Meaning - do networks influence the political outcome? Which, leads to my next point,
• What does it mean when networks are each keen on creating their own separate debates? Does this help or hinder the democratic process? What criteria is determined for inclusion or exclusion in a debate? Hopefully the networks will be transparent in their selection criteria for inclusion/exclusion in debates. These debates can be used for entertainment and education, but networks must surely also understand the social responsibility of holding such debates.
• I find it interesting that many of the networks are creating alliances with online giants. These partnerships are undeniably mutually beneficial, but they are also fascinating from an outsider’s POV. What made Google hook up with CNN, and Yahoo with Huffington Post/Slate and ABC with Facebook?
•  I’m curious to see if political coverage is more intense this year, especially with the writer’s strike still dragging on, and the networks’ need for more prime-time content.

Election day is here and I am in complete awe of the amount of choices we have this election. We have the potential to completely change the balance of power in the House of Representatives for the first time in 12 years. The California governor and state senator seats are both up. And little known offices such as BART Director and Community College Board are also being voted on. I hate voting without being educated about where my vote is going, so I spent a little time reviewing all the ballots, propositions and measures this afternoon so I could fill out my massive absentee ballot. A few random observations:

• San Francisco has a measure (J) to call for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, if passed. Wow. I wonder how that one will play out.
• Another San Francisco measure (B) would allow members of City boards and commissions to participate in meetings by teleconference if they are on pregnancy or parental leave. I wonder what the backstory is behind this one? Seems pretty logical, and not sure why we have to burden voters with this kind of measure.
• Oakland mayor and former presidential candidate Jerry Brown is up for Attorney General. He is definitely a serial politician
• Formerly up against Schwarzenegger during the last gubernatorial election, Cruz Bustamante is up for Insurance Commmissioner
• For Board of Supervisors in my local district, Dave Kiddoo is encouraging a write-in campaign.

I usually consult the San Francisco Bay Guardian and the San Francisco Chronicle to determine how I should vote on ballot measures and propositions, as well as to inform myself on candidates who are running. Much to my surprise, when I reviewed judical appointments for California, neither had any endorsements. I know this is a huge election year, but even these appointments should have some sort of endorsements. Judicial appointments do play quite significantly in how laws are created in my state, and I don’t want to simply vote without knowing who to vote for.

After doing some digging, I found the Los Angeles Times partial endorsements for Supreme Court Justices as well as an article on the reason for their picks for the Judicial Races. I also found an guide written by the League of Women Voters that explains how the judges are selected, that includes the breakdown of gender and racial representation in California Court System.

It will be interesting to see how the election results unfold tomorrow.