Politicians adverts target bloggers and blog readers

Two U.S. presidential candidates for 2008 have started advertising on blogs.

One of them, John Edwards, was the 2004 Democratic Party Vice-Presidential candidate. He is using a video broadcast hosted on YouTube to launch his campaign for his Party's presidential nomination. The other, Mitt Romney, is a medium chance to be the Republican Party's candidate for President. His adverts point blog readers to mittromney.com.

It's worth noting that the ads are both cheaper than television and will be better targeted.


Anonymous said...

Edwards is a wolf in sheep's clothing, plain and simple.

Stop for a minute, and consider what he's actually done, and not his talk.

While many members in congress wisely voted against the Iraq war, Edwards not only voted for it, he co-sponsored the disasterous resolution with neocon Joe Lieberman, that made it possible.

Edwards also co-sponsored and voted for the massive increase in H-1b visas, that dumped 195,000 foreign workers on the job market, destroying perhaps hundreds of thousands of American tech careers.

Edwards voted for permanaent normal trade relations with China, making American workers have to compete with Chinese labor standards, which of course they can't.

Edwards voted for the DREAM act, forcing states to give in-state tuition (a subsidy) to illegal aliens, when there are poor Americans in these states who cant afford to send their kids to college, partially because illegal immigration drove down their wages. This act, of course only encourages more illegal immigration because it extends even further the taxpayers obligations to those who break our laws to come here.

But what about civil liberties? Here again, Edwards voted to the Patriot act, perhaps the greatest risk to civil liberties, ever.

Edwards supporters don’t want Edwards to be held accountable for these facts. Yet, Edwards made himself extremely wealthy holding others (such as doctors) accountable - so much so that doctors malpractice premiums rose so much as to make many obstetricians have left their specialty. More illegal alien taxpayer payed births, and fewer obstetricians - could that be why health care costs are skyrocketing?

One simple question - 10 years ago, if you did your job, the way Edwards performed as Senator, would he advocate that you get a big promotion?

Or would he have sued you and taken you to the cleaners?

Antoine Clarke said...

I report on elections and election campaign tools, so I don't care if Mephistofiles is running for President against

Personally, I oppose immigration restrictions except: 1) where the immigrant has the intention of committing crimes against the persons or property of the host population; 2) where the immigrant is escaping justice [I mean justice, not arbitrary power] in his or her own country; 3) where the immigrant intends to exploit a welfare system; or 4) where the immigrant has no intention of assimilating the language, customs and laws of the host nation.

If a man wants to move somewhere and work and can find an employer it is no business of anyone else.

As for China. If you don't like Chinese products, no one is forcing you to buy them: make up your mind. Do you want poor people to find work in cheap labour countries and sell to you, or would you prefer to allow them into the U.S.A. and compete there? Unless you actually want to force people to live in poverty for ever (to which the question is what right do you have to enforce this?), you don't seem to have a coherent view point.

In so as far as John Edwards supports free trade, then good for him!

However, I don't have a vote in the U.S.A. and only take sides in terms of who is running a good election campaign.

This is an election watch blog, not a forum on the merits or sins of trial lawyers.

Jackie Danicki said...

Antoine, we had an interesting discussion at Perry de Havilland's last night about assimilation vs integration. I think integration is key, assimilation is not. One example given was of London's Chinese immigrants, most of whom have integrated but not assimilated.