The Search for Reliable Information Continues: Scouring the Blogosphere

This week, I have surveyed the Internet for links to diverse, relevant, and reputable websites containing information on the 2008 presidential election. These links may be found in my linkroll. I used the Webby Awards Criteria to assess the overall quality of these web resources and paid especially close attention to the IMSA criteria, which standardizes expectations for weblogs. A bulk of the links come from the blogosphere, an area left relatively unexplored in my earlier post. Before delving into that realm, I will begin with introducing a spectacular visual representation of the primary election results (pictured on the right). Complex quantitative election data is organized in the familiar, simple design of a Google map and is highly interactive.

For readers who are weary about obtaining information from weblogs, an excellent starting point is newspapers. Several major news organizations maintain political blogs and scrutinize the posts for the same objectivity and accuracy as can be found in print articles. Washington Post's The Fix is maintained by a credentialed reporter, Chris Cillizza, who travels to events, posts videos and links, and often invites user interaction. Another excellent Post blog The Trail is a more general election 2008 site maintained by various reporters. The blog shares many similarities to the New York Times' The Caucus in delivering regular posts with reliable information and clear formatting. Generally, though, each site covers unique stories so readers can explore both without encountering excessive overlap. More Internet-savvy readers may prefer weblogs that are more oriented toward the online community, as characterized by having multiple contributors and employing minimal editing. Two popular sources are the Daily Kos and The Huffington Post. While both have several writers, the websites have different accountability checks on their authors. Entries on the Daily Kos are left open-ended, often receiving hundreds of feedback commentary with concurring and dissenting opinions. The Huffington Post similarly sees regular commenting but is further equipped with biographies on the authors, helping readers to assess their credibility. Another category of weblogs comes directly from the campaigns. The major candidates in the race John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama maintain easily accessible blogs in addition to campaign websites. While each has an obvious bias, the posts supply useful links, media, and general campaign information. The Obama campaign presents the most routine updates, followed closely by the Clinton blog. Finally, feeling overwhelmed by the sheer amount of available facts and figures in the World Wide Web is understandable. As a remedy, Comedy Central’s Indecision 2008 website provides a humorous take on the election events. Articles, media, and polls may look like information that is found on any other political website, but Comedy Central provides a lighthearted, humorous, and sometimes satirical take on election events. I hope to have pointed my readers in the right direction, towards useful and engaging sources for 2008 presidential election information.

Florida and Michigan 2008: Forcing Delegates To Stand

After Barack Obama carried eleven straight primary wins with a seemingly unstoppable momentum, Democrats suggested that Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race for the nomination if she could not win in two key states, Texas and Ohio. The positive results for Senator Clinton last Tuesday, however, effectively legitimized the continuation of her campaign and have perpetuated the tremendously fierce competition between her and Senator Obama. The wins seem to have leveled the playing field, if not mathematically, then definitely for supporters who witnessed what appeared to be the downward spiral of the Clinton campaign. Unpledged or superdelegates have been in the media spotlight, but not until recently, have the forgotten Michigan and Florida delegates re-commanded the media's attention. Throughout 2007, state legislatures across the country conducted votes to move their primaries back in order to play a significant role in the nominating contests, to garner national influence, solicit candidate visits, and have the needs of voters in their respective states addressed; candidates in the past have often sealed party nominees long before later states get a chance to vote. Super Tuesday was packed full of states anxious to conduce their primaries directly after the big four. Florida and Michigan, however, violated Democratic National Committee rules by moving their primary dates before Super Tuesday, knowing that the move would effectively strip them of delegates. Florida's primary took place on January 29th, just after South Carolina and Nevada while Michigan moved their primary election right behind New Hampshire's on January 15th. (A Florida polling place is pictured on the left.)

Both Michigan and Florida have effectively garnered much national attention, but the repercussions for the moves have largely been negative. Instead of luring candidates to their states, candidates agreed not to campaign at all in Florida and many Democratic candidates removed their names from the Michigan ballot. Though Hillary Clinton won by an overwhelming majority in each state, the wins did not noticeably provide Clinton with national momentum; in fact, as mentioned previously, Obama went on to win eleven consecutive primaries. Most importantly, however, is that the primaries will not seat delegates at the DNC National Committee Meeting. Although Republicans also stripped Florida of half of their delegates at the nominating convention, John McCain has already been selected as the nominee and there is no dispute within the party. For Democrats, the climate is right for people to start worrying again about Florida and Michigan, since a nominee has not been selected yet and there are 210 delegates at stake in Florida and 156 in Michigan. The question is how state party leaders and the DNC can negotiate an answer that is both fair and practical. In crafting a solution for the allocation of delegates in Florida and Michigan, Democratic leaders must be committed to prioritize voters in their states.

The situation is complex and multifaceted. As the Democratic National Committee has taken a "you got yourself into this mess" approach, the resolution will rely on negotiation. Howard Dean, chairman of the DNC pictured on the right, has said repeatedly that Florida and Michigan must develop their own comprehensive plan and present it to the DNC. The first major issue is whether or not the original primary elections should be upheld. If so, each state will have to apply for an appeal for the original results to be counted. While some party leaders like Michigan senator Carl Levin don't believe holding another election is feasible, several party leaders in each state agree that entirely new elections should be conducted. After all, the election was not traditional or fair in many regards. Voters were well aware that their votes would not result in seated delegates, and in Michigan many candidates were not even on the ballot. A suggestion has also arisen that delegates could be split evenly between candidates at the convention; this "solution" would disenfranchise voters, completely ignoring their preferences and leaving them unrepresented. For these reasons, a new election is the only justifiable option for voters in both states. The next issue, then, is that holding another primary will cost each state millions of dollars--states and the DNC have refused to finance the elections and state Democratic parties cannot afford to pay. A widely suggested solution has been private financing to the state Democratic party who will then have the resources necessary to conduct the election.

A fair primary election must be conducted for Florida and Michigan voters and the delegates representing their votes need to be seated at the Democratic National Committee meeting in August. Any compromise of this fact will greatly undermine the United States' democratic and would be an incredibly tragic mistake. Hillary Clinton has suggested that the results should be counted. Barack Obama has stressed the importance of DNC rules. (You can find the campaign's opinions here.) Candidates obviously weigh their political interest over voters' interests. Howard Dean has stressed that although he wants voters in Florida and Michigan to have a say, the DNC's job is get a nominee elected in the national election and as such, the situation is really out of his hands. Thus, I must stress the importance of state leaders to fight for the fair representation of their constituents. Party leaders in each state, especially those responsible for the initial primary date move, should craft a responsible solution with voters in mind. If not, the national and international consequences will be great. For the Democratic party to be viewed as a capable, cohesive organization, all voters must be represented at the convention. Millions of dollars will be required for this to take place, but it is a small price to pay for justice.

Decisions 2008: Finding Reliable, User-Friendly Resources On The Net

Engaging with multiple sources is vital in obtaining accurate political information on the Internet. The sheer number of websites and blogs related to the 2008 presidential election residing in the World Wide Web can be overwhelming and thus, using criteria from the Webby Awards and the Illinois Math and Science Academy’s, I am recommending ten reliable websites which can be found in my linkroll. CNN’s Election Center 2008: Road To The White House serves as a guiding website with a variety of supplemental information organized in easily navigable sections. Particularly intriguing is the delegate explanation page, which carefully explicates the confusing system with an accompanying map. Another website with a strong election page is the New York Times’ Election Guide 2008. Besides several convenient features in common with the CNN website, the candidate schedules calendar is a unique page that lists when and where candidates are making appearances. One section unfortunately lacking is the issues page, containing facts too simplified and brief for such complex subject matter. While these sites are useful in providing foundational knowledge on the issues, detailed information should be sought elsewhere. Polling data, for example, involves elaborate numbers and time-sensitive data. Polling firms frequently release data on candidate leads regionally and nationally. Two widely cited and trusted polling firms are Gallup and Rasmussen; both are conducting polls on the 2008 presidential election. The Gallup Daily: Tracking Election 2008 website is updated regularly, and provides the data in the form of graphs, charts, and text to explain findings. The Rasmussen Reports: Daily Presidential Tracking Poll produces a more text-based output of results than Gallup, lacking in visual representation but providing additional analysis. Fact check websites are another invaluable tool for examining qualitative data in elections. These sites scrutinize claims made by candidates in television ads, debates, speeches, interviews, and news releases. A worthwhile resource is the Annenberg Public Policy Center Political Fact Check, managed by a non-partisan and non-profit group. The website is very technologically up-to-date and offers features such as video webcasts of findings, e-mail alerts, and user feedback options. On the Washington Post blog The Fact-Checker, users can find similar information in a different format. While the blog cannot claim to be as unbiased as the Annenberg assessments, it is more oft updated, covers a wider variety of events, and the narrative format is easier to read. Accountability websites also exist for campaign spending. To be sure, this information is public and readily available on other websites, but the Center For Responsive Politics’ Open Secrets 2008 page compiles all the data in a central place. Facts and figures may be viewed by candidate and by donor demographic and are complete with visual illustrations. C-SPAN’s Campaign Network provides a wealth of raw, complete clips of candidates delivering speeches across the country. Everyone may not have enough time to dedicate to fifteen-minute clips; nevertheless, the videos are a refreshing break from the sound bites and biased articles that dominate much of popular media. Indulging in these popular clips is another aspect of politics and the Internet. Digg, the website which allows users to vote on websites and links they enjoy, has a simple page for the 2008 presidential election. Most interesting is the “Recently Popular in US Elections” section, a page that links to the websites that thousands of other Internet users are viewing. Lastly, to show the versatility of political resources available on the Internet, is NPR’s Election 2008 website. The website has a player for news radio, and perhaps the most convenient feature is that users can select stories and create a personalized play list. I hope to have provided you with several tools for finding and assessing information for the 2008 presidential election. I am planning to follow up with more recommendations in the future to trusted websites and blogs to help bring more clarity and objectivity to this sometimes confusing election season.