3 ms·

I personally find this a more effective use of his twitter account than general meaningless PR. He's trying to initiate social action, I get that it can be anno

by shakes 15y ago

I personally find this a more effective use of his twitter account than general meaningless PR. He's trying to initiate social action, I get that it can be annoying if you don't care. But if you don't care, you probably shouldn't be following Barack Obama.

hugh3 15y ago
It seems counterproductive. Surely the number of people getting pissed off and unfollowing the account would be quite large compared to the amount of good it would actually do. I guess the world is still learning the answers to questions like "How many times a day can you tweet before you piss people off?" Oh, just one other thing: He's trying to initiate social action Well no, the political posturing is what's important here, not the question of whether some random jerk leaves a message at some random congressman's office. The point of the campaign is to try to claim credit when the eventual compromise comes through (or else to be able to blame Republicans for refusing to "compromise" when the negotiations fall through). As always in politics, what you're seen to be doing is far more important than what you're doing. And remember that in politican speak, "We want a bipartisan compromise" always means "We want the other party to vote for our bill".
- shakes 15y ago
  Maybe I'm a bit too naive, but I think that if it was just about claiming credit for the compromise he could do that whether or not he takes his case to twitter.
  - hugh3 15y ago
    He could do it without it, yes, but in the PR game every little bit helps. The twitter thing creates a full-blown narrative with a media-friendly hook (the media will publish any BS involving the word "twitter" at the moment) and the conclusion "Barack Obama saves the day". Look, the whole thing is, at this point, an incredibly complicated political dance, and I've lost track of exactly who is dry-humping whom. But it's far beyond the point where you can take anything that anybody says at face value.

by shakes 15y ago

hugh3 15y ago

It seems counterproductive. Surely the number of people getting pissed off and unfollowing the account would be quite large compared to the amount of good it would actually do. I guess the world is still learning the answers to questions like "How many times a day can you tweet before you piss people off?" Oh, just one other thing: He's trying to initiate social action Well no, the political posturing is what's important here, not the question of whether some random jerk leaves a message at some random congressman's office. The point of the campaign is to try to claim credit when the eventual compromise comes through (or else to be able to blame Republicans for refusing to "compromise" when the negotiations fall through). As always in politics, what you're seen to be doing is far more important than what you're doing. And remember that in politican speak, "We want a bipartisan compromise" always means "We want the other party to vote for our bill".

shakes 15y ago
Maybe I'm a bit too naive, but I think that if it was just about claiming credit for the compromise he could do that whether or not he takes his case to twitter.
- hugh3 15y ago
  He could do it without it, yes, but in the PR game every little bit helps. The twitter thing creates a full-blown narrative with a media-friendly hook (the media will publish any BS involving the word "twitter" at the moment) and the conclusion "Barack Obama saves the day". Look, the whole thing is, at this point, an incredibly complicated political dance, and I've lost track of exactly who is dry-humping whom. But it's far beyond the point where you can take anything that anybody says at face value.