State of the Union Address Goes Web 2.0 239
CWmike writes "The White House will be tapping Web 2.0 technology to reach out to Americans during and after the president's State of the Union address tonight. While President Barack Obama makes his annual address starting at 9 p.m. ET, the official White House Web site will have a live stream of the speech, along with charts and statistics to provide context and emphasize key points. 'We're putting the finishing touches on a new feature for WhiteHouse.gov that will offer an enhanced viewer experience for President Obama's State of the Union address,' wrote Macon Phillips, the White House director of new media, in a blog post. Immediately after the State of the Union address, the White House will host an Open for Questions event on Twitter. Several senior administration officials will be fielding questions submitted on the White House Facebook page, the White House Webform, or via Twitter using the #sotu hashtag and responding to @whitehouse. And on Wednesday, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs will take citizens' questions via Twitter before his post-State of the Union briefing. Anyone interested can follow @PressSec on Twitter to find out when Gibbs will take questions and post video responses. To submit a question for him, respond to @PressSec using the hashtag #1Q. At 2:30 p.m. Eastern on Thursday, Obama will take questions live on YouTube."
feh (Score:3, Funny)
I won't be watching, The Real Housewives of New Jersey is on.
More honest likable people.
And thus, POTUS will be trolled... (Score:2)
Don't open up discussion on Twitter. You can't say anything worth while there. Everyone knows this. All that will be there are trolls and worshipers.
"OBAMA U TARD KENYAN!"
**Comment Deleted**
"CENCERSHYPPP!!!!!!111"
Re: (Score:2)
Keith Olbermann will be tweeting the SOTU at #FOK I think.
Re: (Score:2)
My Ranking (Worst at the top, going down to "more reasonable")
Small newspaper article comment sections ... ...
Youtube
Various Forums' "Politics" sections
Twitter
Facebook
Myspace
Fark
Slashdot (I consider Slashdot to be the most reasonable and still accessible public discussion area I've ever found. Much is due to the rating system.)
Fill in as you see fit.
"Web 2.0"? Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Web 2.0"? Really? (Score:5, Funny)
I think the 2.0 comes with taking comments and questions from Twitter and Youtube-- the bastions of reasonable discourse on the web.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Doh, you're totally right. Knee-jerk reaction to the first sentence without reading the summary properly. Facepalming now.
Which summarizes Web 2.0 extremely well.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the 2.0 comes with taking comments and questions from Twitter and Youtube-- the bastions of reasonable discourse on the web.
I'd question whether those are really "Web 2.0" either. They're just web pages with comments on them. Basically a public forum that got really popular. :)
Re:"Web 2.0"? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which summarizes Web 2.0 extremely well.
Re: (Score:2)
Which summarizes Web 2.0 extremely well.
Welcome to Gopher and Usenet 20 years ago? Old is new with a different label.
Re: (Score:2)
Web 1.0 supposedly is static web sites. Web 2.0 encompasses anything that allows users to interact back. Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, stuff like that. According to the marketing morons that came up with the phrase "web 2.0", Slashdot is in the list.
For a more titillating experience... (Score:4, Funny)
watch it on www.WhiteHouse.com.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't, that's blocked where I work.
I guess they're as much behind the times as you are, seeing as how whitehouse.com hasn't been a porn site for years.
nothing here to see...move along (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Its at least 10 years for me. Clinton was slightly above acceptable, Bush Sr was slightly below acceptable. Reagan, Bush Jr and Obama have been horrible. Not old enough to have any first hand opinions of the previous presidents.
Re: (Score:2)
Its at least 10 years for me. Clinton was slightly above acceptable, Bush Sr was slightly below acceptable. Reagan, Bush Jr and Obama have been horrible.
Um, Reagan left office 23 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
And Clinton left 10 years ago. I liked Clinton because he did his job well enough. I need to have made a new years resolution to keep tangential subjects in separate paragraphs even if I only intent on using a couple sentences, I also need to avoid excessively long sentences, and possibly excessive comma splicing.
Re: (Score:2)
Regan was great for this country. We had great economic growth which drove the Democrats crazy. We had low unemployment and nice growth of entrepreneurs. Everything after that was down hill. Some more downhill than others, but downhill not the less. Too bad Clinton didn't actually help with the Internet. We were just fortunate that he stayed the hell out of the way and let it happen. Now Obama and his Congress seem intent on putting a nice strangle hold on it with all their regulations and what not. So we
Re: (Score:3)
Are ye daft? Reagan oversaw the 4th worst economic downturn in US history. The three that were worse were the Civil War, the Great Depression and the Presidency of Bush jr. His economic policy was amazingly bad. Its the kind of backwards hairbrained proven bad bs that you might have expected some uneducated cowboy actor come up with.
BFD (Score:4, Interesting)
Wait until it's in 3D (Score:5, Funny)
Wait until it's in 3D, which they are working on using the same technology Cameron used for Avatar. You'll be able to see how you're being fucked in 3D. Imagine that!
3D Obama was Amazing (Score:2)
I'm from the future. When they got the 3D tech worked out 3D Obama was amazing, especially the part where he reached right into my pocket and removed the cash from my wallet directly, then I got to see it handed over to Goldman-USA-GM (they have merged in our time and are usually referred to as "The Collective") in real-time!
Oddly though when I tried to give Obama a hug to let him know how awesome he was I received a mild electric shock instead of a warm embrace.
Re: (Score:2)
Great improvement (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Really really really makes me wish the Founders had required the President to deliver a report on the "State of The Federal Union".
Twitter Account (Score:3)
And here today at lunch I just opened a Twitter account. Sort of shatters your image of people you used to think were pretty cool. Except for Nathan Fillion. He rocks.
Anecdote: David Plouffe (once Obama's campaign manager, now senior advisor) spoke at our university last year. When asked by a student why, now that he was elected, Obama was no longer calling on the nation to do for themselves, "Yes we can!", etc. He completely dismissed (complete with dismissive hand wave) that whole concept of team effort, saying now that the election is done, "It wouldn't work. It just wouldn't." And went onto another topic. My question to him was going to be, "Remember when Joe the Plumber told the news that he felt like he needed a shower when he got off McCain's bus? I don't see Obama being slimy like McCain. You seem to fit the bill though. True?" Ran out of time though.
Rickroll ... (Score:2)
Someone should try to Rickroll the president on live TV.
I'd watch the State of the Union if I thought that might happen.
Commentator: the President is now taking comments from the internet, and is clicking on the question. "Never gonna give you up, never gonna ... ".
Now that's entertainment. Then, of course, we need a live feed of the poor bastard whose hacked computer did this so we could watch the black-ops guys swoop in and haul him away.
Someone should get on that. Excuse me, I think I hear a knock at
Re: (Score:2)
Rickroll. Pffft! Man, he definitely needs a goatse!
Web 2.0? PFFFT!!! (Score:2)
How long before presidential speeches go the way of the GPU industry and they just start skipping 100's and then thousands, unill they finally realize the number they used in the name of the speech is so long they can't print it on CNNs intro splash screen any more so they have to start preceding the number with an X to represent the digits
Re:Web 2.0? PFFFT!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
On a separate note the whitehouse did the streaming content distribution with Level 3 and Comcast users were unable to see it since Comcast is holding Level 3 up for ransom due to the lack of net neutrality laws.
Will it have a lie counter? (Score:2)
I want it to tick over for every lie he makes.
No, this isn't specific to Obama, they all do it. Obama's just most famous for it because Alito called him on one lie during his last SOTU.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama's just most famous for it because Alito called him on one lie during his last SOTU.
[Citation needed]
Not Alito's BS, I mean evidence that he lied. My recollection is that Alito blew up and spewed ignorant rhetoric.
Slides, context (Score:5, Insightful)
I am glad to see this happening, but saddened that it is such a big deal. In the corporate world, no CFO gives a presentation without slides showing the information and references to back it up. In every board room, you have a projector, a conference call system, and attendees with laptops. Every statement is cited with specific numbers and backed-up with links and references.
But in politics, someone can hold a speech or a debate and there are no slides, no links, and no references. Two candidates in a debate can quote entirely different numbers for the same thing, and even change their numbers from speech to speech. It it is up to the listeners to find sources after the fact. It is really quite silly. If businessmen operated like political candidates they would be ousted after the first board meeting.
I always imagined that if I was up there I would say "The US imports XXX barrels of oil, according to Gartner research" and a slide would appear showing the number within context of other nations, and a link to the research report. I know that only .01% of people would actually look that up, but much like open source, not everyone has to do that. It's just all a part of promoting transparency and accuracy. If the other side wants to quote a different number, that's fine, then they can post their links as well.
Re: (Score:2)
no CFO gives a presentation without slides showing the information and references to back it up
Unless the CFO is actively trying to pass off a lie.
And there's your answer.
Re: (Score:3)
This state of the union address contains forward-looking statements which reflect the administration's best judgment based on factors currently known. However, these statements involve risks and uncertainties, including a Republican-controlled House, talk radio, the tea party, as yet undiscovered problems to blame Bush for, and other risks detailed in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 and our quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. These risk
Our Apologies (Score:3)
The official link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sotu [whitehouse.gov]
All I get is:
"Our Apologies....The site is currently undergoing maintenance. We appreciate your patience while we make some improvements. Please check back soon."
I was very disappointed. I was so looking forward to getting a message about how my standards-based Linux + Firefox could not watch the video because I am not using MS-Windows, IE, and/or Silverlight.
Re: (Score:2)
Site is up for me - Chrome no less
Re: (Score:2)
PR Stunt (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a total PR stunt. They have absolutely no plans to actually take real questions from real people. I wouldn't be suprised if they didn't already have lined up who they would take questions from and that they will be total softball or cream puff questions. There is no chance they will take any tough or difficult questions that require real thought and real committment to actually comment on an issue or make a real change. This is merely a stunt. They are only doing this so they can say in the mass med
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Early Copy (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what our political reporting has been reduced too. If you do not toe the line, you do not get access. Ask too many uncomfortable questions, and you will only be asking questions of local school board candidates. You can argue, within the bounds set by the Washington elite, but you must stick to the narrative. Argue whichever "side" you like, as the sides have been pre-chosen and approved by the powers that be. Just don't question the narrative itself, or again, you won't be reporting in Washington.
Re: (Score:2)
The questions answer thing is a total PR gimmick. It going to be a complete cream puff PR answer and question. There won't be a single hard or difficult question in any of the questions the post and respond to. That is just a given. This White House doesn't respond well at all to well thought out factual criticism.
Re: (Score:2)
Please quote the "Well thought out factual criticism" that you feel the White House has failed to respond to.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't really think he is a socialist. They know he is a moderate Republican. But people like the Koch brothers fund libertarian groups for two reasons: to repeal all government regulations, and to get rid of all taxation of the wealthy. By those standards, Obama has only given them several thousand inches, and now they want a light-year. I mean, if a guy is bending over backwards to do everything you ask, you could thank him, but then people might realize he was doing everything you asked. Better to ca
Re: (Score:2)
Everything? Like pushing a healthcare bill only 45% of the population wanted?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean RomneyCare? The bill that Mittens tried to put up as an alternative to single payer back in Clinton's first term? ObamaCare is exactly the same bill, right down to the individual mandate, which Republicans pushed as "individual responsibility."
You DO know that most of that 55% who don't like it wanted a single payer system, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really see him as a Republican rather than a centrist progressive?
I doubt any Republicans would have fought as hard as he did to push ObamaCare.
p.s. duly noted that you continually capitalized Democrats and not republicans... and for the record, I'm Libertarian and couldn't care less about either of the major parties
Re: (Score:2)
Your best response to the Tea Party is name calling? If that is the best the Democrats or the Republicans have then both parties really have become a joke. Deal with the actual issues leave the childish name calling at home kids.
Re: (Score:2)
Your best response to the Tea Party is name calling? If that is the best the Democrats or the Republicans have then both parties really have become a joke.
The tea party is just a way to elect Republicans. When you look at people showing up to rallies and looking at tea party information when voting, surveys show them as:
a Tea Party Member “is essentially someone who would've earlier identified as a Republican but now calls himself an independent despite being a conservative and voting pretty much exclusively for Republicans.”
So when you talk about republicans and the tea party, the tea party pretty much always votes for republicans, even if those republicans are now calling themselves tea baggers as well. It's just a rebranding of some of the Republican party in a way to try to lure in Libertarians and Republican supporters who are too upset by their party to vote
Re: (Score:3)
I actually thought the teabaggers were going to compromise
And I never thought liberals would stop referring to libertarians and conservatives using sexual slang, and instead debate based on ideas.
Looks like I was right. I wonder what else all of the Tea Party members have been right about while you've been mocking them?
Re: (Score:2)
Citation about crazy needed.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Controversies [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to be joking. Given the way the Democrats have been attacking Republican Paul Ryan the last day or so? They are not civil, it's once again do as I say, not as I do. They have been saying he wants to get rid of Medicare and destroy Social Security and wants to see all the old people die on the streets. Which is a total lie. He has never said anything even close to that. No one has ever talked about getting rid of Medicare or Social Security. So much for being civil, and so much for no violent rhetor
Re:Early Copy (Score:4, Informative)
You have to be joking. Given the way the Democrats have been attacking Republican Paul Ryan the last day or so? They are not civil, it's once again do as I say, not as I do.
Attacking someone's position is not the same as attacking a person.
They have been saying he wants to get rid of Medicare and destroy Social Security and wants to see all the old people die on the streets.
Citation please. I've seen numerous comments that he wants to privative SS, which many people think will destroy it and result in old people suffering and dying needlessly. I haven't seen anyone say he wants old people to suffer and die.
No one has ever talked about getting rid of Medicare or Social Security.
In 2010 Ryan did propose a "Roadmap for America" that included replacing Medicare and Medicaid with private vouchers with values that would slowly decrease as a way of weaning America off of what he called "the entitlement programs". I think maybe you need to do some research before you make assertions.
So much for being civil, and so much for no violent rhetoric.
Please do cite this "violent rhetoric" and "attacks" of which you speak, attacks on him, not his proposed plans.
That is the real face of the Democratic party.
I'm no supporter of the Democratic party, but I do watch the real news and I haven't seen what you're talking about. It takes about 30 seconds with Google to find evidence that Ryan did propose privatizing SS and eliminating Medicare/Medicaid. Maybe you should stop watching Fox news and try any other channel, or better yet look at a variety of sources.
Re: (Score:2)
If they believe that privatizing social security will destroy social security, then why are they talking about Paul Ryan instead of talking about Social Security and its privatization?
This is proving the point. They are not attacking the position.. they are attacking the person that just happens to have a position. The intent is to destroy the person, not the position.
Re: (Score:2)
Attacking someones position involves talking about their position.
Yes... or assuming your listeners know or can discover those positions.
If they believe that privatizing social security will destroy social security, then why are they talking about Paul Ryan instead of talking about Social Security and its privatization?
Who is? I asked for a citation. Where are people attacking him personally instead of his policies, or making statements about what they think the result of his policies would be?
Re: (Score:2)
Because the text of the speech is always distributed to the media before hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the text of the speech is always distributed to the media before hand.
I just tried looking for evidence that this is true, and could not find any through a Google search or through a search of Wikipedia. Can you cite any sources for this?
Re: (Score:2)
Ask any of the political operatives. Due to the high stakes of national politics, nothing is ever sprung on the populace without first going through several rounds of focus groups and smaller speeches in order to test the reaction and tune the language; for instance, the change from "spending initiatives" to "investment opportunities" in the current speech. None of these guys would be foolish enough to just stand up and give a speech where they say what they really think.
Re: (Score:2)
None of these guys would be transparent enough to just stand up and give a speech where they say what they really think.
Fixed that for you. I promise, if I ever was elected to office, I'd be 100% transparent about my nefarious plans.
Re:Haven't Heard (Score:2)
Here!
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/State_of_the_Union/state-of-the-union-2010-president-obama-speech-transcript/story?id=9678572 [go.com]
What does that do to your post?
Re: (Score:2)
Because for one thing, it doesn't much matter what the other guy says, each side has their own set of talking points to stick to. And for another, those talking points don't change much from year to year, so you can usually guess what each side will say long before they put finger to keyboard.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not really very entertaining. Heck, there have been numerous Daily Show segments where Stewart tries to have a serious discussion of some topic, but can't get the politician in question to do anything but quote party lines and generalities. Talking about the issues isn't good marketing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or better yet, since both of those ideas are co-opted and worthless, devolve to zero.
make that: devolve to minus two.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Name calling to the Tea Party is your best to refute what they have to say and what the American public did on November 2? I feel really sorry for your political party which ever that is, since it is clear your not interested in actually discussing idea, but instead just want to resort to name calling. Way to promote open debate of American politics.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The Tea Party has never said anything comprehensible enough to be refuted. The American Public rejected the Tea Party at the polls, in fact the Tea Party cost the Republicans quite a few seats. If you have a political position, you should state what it is. Then we can debate it. As for the Tea Party itself, I have no respect for the loons who identify with the Tea Party. You may as well ask why I do not debate Charles Manson over the morality of getting others to kill strangers for you. Because there is not
Re: (Score:3)
So Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Marco Rubio didn't win? Seems the Tea Party helped republicans win back the house [bloomberg.com].
Or as you like to say, a citation is needed to back your claim.
Re: (Score:2)
First sentence in that article starts: "While losses by Tea Party-backed candidates may have helped cost Republicans control of the U.S. Senate, "
Seriously, a scant handful of Republicans masquerading as the "Tea Party" won a few seats, and this is somehow indicative of a public mandate?
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously. Since the screaming in US politics went from 140 years!!!!111! of unprecedented democrat rule to: Oh shit, we're losing everything. I believe the turn of phrase is 'historic loss in party confidence' and yes, indeed it was.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trying to make a joke, or do you simply not know any history or current events?
Re: (Score:2)
Most people never thought they had a chance at controlling the Senate until the next election anyway. They (and I mean they, I'm neither a Republican nor a Tea Party member... notice the lack of name calling though) did however gain seats there.
I think the large shift in the House speaks for itself though. People were unhappy with quite a few things, and IMHO the vote and Pelosi's comments on ObamaCare even though the majority of citizens didn't want it sealed the deal.
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of citizens want Obamacare, according to the most recent polls. Of the ones who do not like Obamacare, like me, most actually wanted single payer, like they have in the rest of the civilized world. You can't have a free market in health care, people simply do not make rational decisions about health.
Right now, our health care system is simply a bunch of leaches. Now, real leaches have actual medical value, but I am talking about the3 paper pushing, money wasting kind. Too much of our GDP goes t
Re:Early Copy (Score:4, Insightful)
I give you every opportunity to actually debate. I will not accord anyone respect they haven't earned. You do not get to act like a child, but get treated like an adult. If you have a position, put it out there and I will debate without name calling or rancor. Just don't think that you can act like an evil, spoiled child and then whine about it when others don't treat you with respect.
You want a debate? Bring it. State your position.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Really? The Tea Party says Obama is a Muslim Kenyan terrorist and all liberals are traitors who should be shot. What do we say that is even 1/100th as crazy?
Re: (Score:2)
Give me something to refute, then. What is the Tea Party platform? Come on, quite whining and state your position.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am about as liberal as they get. And I have been horribly disappointed in the failures of Obama. Great president? No. Clinton was worth something. Obama is just another devious snake.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse.
CC.
Re: (Score:2)
you must be a racist, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Was this a joke?
Re: (Score:2)
Great let's all support subverting the legal system and the Constitution and just let the President do anything he wants and screw dealing with Congress. It's after just a hassle to deal with Congress and so much more efficient to just do what you want. That is exactly what ruling by Executive Order is that you are talking about. Obama has already started to do that since it became clear he lost Congress. You sir and your ideas are why America is so screwed up these days. America has always been about prote
Re: (Score:2)
Look up the history of Executive Order. Who issued the most executive orders, hmm? Bush Jr. HOw much do the Republicans care about protecting the minority when they are in power? None. And you DO realize that Democrats still control the Senate and the Executive office, and Republicans do not have a solid majority even in the house, right? Democrats still control government. Obama does not need to use the executive order precedent set by Bush.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet he has anyway
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama-subjects.html [archives.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
The number of EO's signed (according to the National Archives list of Executive orders):
Obama - 75 (2 years)
Bush Jr - 291 (8 years)
Clinton - 364 (8 years)
Bush Sr. - 166 (4 years)
So Clinton beat Bush Jr. by a significant number (as did Reagan and Carter for that matter) and Obama is actually a little over Bush's average for EO's/yr.
Sorry to bring some actual numbers into this argument. Carry on with your factless rhetoric.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama does not need to use the executive order precedent set by Bush.
Then why is he?
Please talk about the issue. The issue is that Obama IS doing what you are trying to vilify Bush for. If Bush is a villain, and Obama is doing just as Bush, doesnt that make Obama a villain as well?
If not, why not? Please talk about the issue raise.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, don't get me wrong. Obama is not doing the right thing by using executive orders. But he has issued orders of magnitude less of them than Bush, and I'd be wiling to bet you didn't speak out about Bush's executive orders.
Re: (Score:2)
He has not used signing statements. He promised this when he was elected and has upheld his promise. There is a clear precedent for using signing statements (George W. Bush) and it increases the power of the executive dramatically. So, based upon how you lambast "subverting the legal system", I assume that you must support Obama in choosing not to use a political maneuver which concentrates power in the executive.
Obama has already started to do that since it became clear he lost Congress.
Cite please.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama has already issued several signing statements, fewer than GWB to be sure, but you really should look these things up.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good thing Obama hasn't used executive orders [archives.gov] so your statement holds true.
Re: (Score:3)
Want to know who has used the *fewest* (based on number signed per year in office)? G. W. Bush. Surprised? Me too.
I made a little table based on the numbers from the archives.gov page on Executive Orders.
Average of EOs/yr Sum of total # EOs
D 97.8 4758
Carter 79.8 319
Clinton 45.4
Re: (Score:3)
Flash -- can't see it on your iPhone
Silverlight -- can't see it on your Linux box
They really need to finalize that HTML5 spec.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's called voting. We don't have to run for office to effect change. Also what the hell do you think blogs and YouTube channels are, just distracting fun? They are also forms of media and commenting on public events and policy. You might want to look around more before you make such foolish comments.
Re: (Score:3)
Obama isn't the pocket of Corporations, but he is firmly in the pockets of the elite radical left. Groups like the Tides Foundation that sponsors ACORN. The people and groups that have sponsored ACORN and similar groups is absolutely who Obama serves. Some even say George Soros has put up big money for Obama. I do know that when Soros commented that unless Obama was going to rule by Executive Order, Soros said it was time to look for someone else to support to get their agenda served. It wasn't too long aft
Re: (Score:2)
He actually voted in the senate?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you propose he do something crazy, like pick up a gun and shoot some Democrats? Oh wait.
Hey the ranks of the radical left were saying that all through Bush's term. They were even writing books, poems, and music on the subject. And don't forget the large number of 'bush burnings' done in effigy.
Re: (Score:3)