30 November 2007
29 November 2007
I noticed Kami Huyse's link and Neville Hobson's video comments regarding an article in TechCrunch by Dan Ackerman Greenberg called "The Secret Strategies Behind Many 'Viral Videos'." I also noticed his follow-up post, where he accused TC's "editorial filter" for making him look like a slimebag and backed away from some of the tactics he initially promoted.
A couple of items in the piece jumped out at me:
So Mr. Greenberg apparently takes pride in planting fake comments and erasing real ones. Of course, the traveling circuses of the late 1800's would often try to build a crowd by paying two men to stage a fight in the town square, so it's not like his tactics are all that innovative.
Every power user on YouTube has a number of different accounts. So do we. A great way to maximize the number of people who watch our videos is to create some sort of controversy in the comments section below the video. We get a few people in our office to log in throughout the day and post heated comments back and forth (you can definitely have a lot of fun with this). Everyone loves a good, heated discussion in the comments section - especially if the comments are related to a brand/startup.
Also, we aren’t afraid to delete comments – if someone is saying our video (or your startup) sucks, we just delete their comment. We can’t let one user’s negativity taint everyone else’s opinions.
We usually get one comment for every thousand views, since most people watching YouTube videos aren’t logged in. But a heated comment thread (done well) will engage viewers and will drive traffic back to our sites.
This is the kind of cynical message manipulation and control that gets people into trouble and degrades our profession in the long run. This attitude leads to fake press conferences with government employees posing as reporters, asking their bosses softball questions. It results in planted questions at White House press conferences or political campaign rallies.
These tactics are a big reason people don't trust politicians anymore. (Of course, one could argue we've never trusted politicians.) They're a big reason people don't trust flacks either.
27 November 2007
It was gratifying to watch moms who write online organize under the banner of the League of Maternal Justice and shake things up a little bit - letting Facebook and the rest of the world know that feeding your baby isn't a sexual act and standing up for the rights of moms everywhere. They created a video montage that effectively expressed the righteous anger so many moms felt when they learned about Facebook's ridiculous decision, and celebrated the "super power" of breastfeeding. The video literally got thousands of people talking - it was one of the five most-discussed videos on YouTube shortly after it debuted there.
I was so disappointed and confused by YouTube's decision to ban the video. There is absolutely, positively NOTHING inappropriate or obscene whatsoever about feeding a baby - or showing someone feeding their baby. There are dozens of laws in dozens of US states and Canadian provinces (not to mention European nations) that say as much. And that's all the video montage shows. Breastfeeding needs to be promoted, not described as "inappropriate." YouTube has done a real disservice here.
And the moms are right to show how the disconnect that existed at Facebook exists on YouTube as well. Despite its outright ban of a video that could probably air on Sesame Street without a problem, YouTube hosts thousands of videos that advertise porn sites, show gratuitous violence, and - once again - offer "thinspiration" for young women with anorexia. Many of these videos aren't even tagged as "adult."
This is not what you call a smart long-term business strategy. These companies need to take a look at who's on their sites most. Facebook users skew female and tend to be more liberal than conservative. That doesn't sound like a "breastfeeding is icky" crowd to me. Nearly all of the most-visited websites on the Internet - i.e., the ones with the most potential ad revenue - are visited more often by women than men.
History is littered with the remains of companies that had a few good ideas but stopped listening to the communities they serve. Facebook and YouTube, Ignore these women at your own peril.
The presidential campaigns are paying a lot of attention to the top-tier political blogs on the left and the right - and while the Instapundits and Eschatons of the world certainly deserve attention, they represent only a small portion of those who read and write online and have sincere and smart policy-based discussions.
When you go beyond the top online fundraisers you learn a lot from those "other" bloggers:
Maggie Mahar penned one of the more comprehensive and well-written pieces that breaks down public opinion toward American healthcare policy options and details the economic realities of implementing some of those options. Great reading for anyone who's interested in health policy - no multiple PhD's required.
Jesse Jenkins lent some space on his blog to Alexander Tinker so he can spread the word about Focus the Nation, a group that is organizing a national "teach-in" about global warming solutions and actively calling on members of Congress to participate.
Dozens and dozens and dozens (and seriously more than I can link to) of moms are writing about an issue that just hasn't gotten the attention I expected from the campaigns - safe toys. This issue resonates so strongly with moms who write online I'm shocked the campaigns haven't built events around this single issue and made it a top-tier concern. If you look at it online, this issue is being discussed by moms more than health policy, more than immigration, more than just about anything. I have to believe that the candidate that owns this issue will earn a ton of votes.
This kind of research is critical not only for the campaigns, but for companies that want to market to any of these constituencies. The research is strictly qualitative at this point, but it's essential to understand the needs of the community. The campaigns and companies that choose to use the same tools and speak the same language of the communities we're reviewing, respecting its cultural (and technological) norms will strengthen its reputation and influence.
26 November 2007
I thought the elections were striking in that the Australian economy is actually fairly sound right now, though interest rates have been creeping up. Voters were apparently concerned about issues in which the government seemed entrenched against popular opinion - the war in Iraq, action in addressing climate change, and most importantly, a very controversial workplace relations law called "WorkChoices."
ABC News (That's Australian, not American) has a really insightful page that tries to outline the role social media played in the election, complete with its winners & losers:
Australia's political blogosphere is particularly robust, from Lavartus Prodeo on the left to Tim Blair on the right. Oz Politics has been a great resource, and Senator Andrew Bartlett's blog is an informative and entertaining example of what a politician can do when he has a good sense of humor and very little fear.
Rudd's presence across websites, social networking sites and banner ads was always under the sign of "Kevin07", and it was useful in painting him as the modern candidate of the future. With the Libs effectively abandoning the net as a campaigning space, it will be interesting to see how many votes Rudd's picked up among those most likely to access political information online.
22 November 2007
The obvious answer to such a question, at least for me, is family. My wife is obviously the most influential person in my life today. Growing up, it was my mom. And I'm incredibly fortunate to have them in my life.
Professionally, I've had the opportunity to work for and with some amazing people. A living legend in the US Senate. A world-renowned pediatrician. A dynamic communicator who built a global company from scratch. I'm so grateful for those experiences.
But as I thought more about the question, I tried to think about someone I've met who has influenced they way I work today. I kept coming back to one guy. When I met him, he was working as a "red cap" baggage handler for Amtrak and living in a blue-collar neighborhood in Boston with his wife and (then) two kids. Today he's a member of the Massachusetts State Senate.
His name is Steven Tolman.
I remember finishing an internship in a Congressman's office in DC and preparing to go home to Massachusetts when the Congressman's press secretary asked me if I would be interested in meeting a guy who was thinking about running for state representative. I was heading back to school in Boston (the internship was a "co-op" from Northeastern University), so I didn't have a ton of time but I agreed. That was about 18 years ago.
So I met Steve at work - South Station. Steve was wearing a redcap uniform and had a look in his eyes that said "I'm really serious about this." His authenticity and his modesty appealed to me. So I agreed to volunteer on his campaign as a jack-of-all trades.
I remember working the door at his fundraisers, listening to old-school Irish Boston pols tell the same jokes they always tell but laughing at each like it was the first time I heard them. (Joe Moakley telling the story of registering people to vote with his dad - at the cemetery. Joe skips over a worn headstone with an illegible name and his dad protests: "hey, that guy has as much a right to vote as anyone else!") I remember holding signs at debates. I even remember dressing up as a clown and marching in a parade with him on a hot day - though now I think his campaign just wanted to see if they could get me to do it.
Most of all, however, I remember knocking on doors with Steve. That's how you win local races. You walk the streets, knock on doors, and get to know people and their concerns. You show the proper respect as you enter someone's home. You listen and make sure that your agenda is relevant to their concerns. And you build relationships with as many people as you can. If you're lucky they'll vote for you and maybe put a sign on their lawn. If you're really lucky, you'll build a new relationship.
I wasn't particularly comfortable with door-knocking - there's just something awkward about showing up at someone's house unannounced and asking for something. I remember hearing the cynical jabs some people took. "Sure, you show up when you want something but you won't be back after you're elected." Or the uncomfortable silence when you realize you don't agree on an important issue or you discover the person is supporting another candidate. But there's something about getting out into the neighborhoods and building relationships. We heard stories from families with sick relatives who were struggling to get by. We heard concerns about education, about job security, about crime. I watched Steven listen and learn and win a few people over. And that was great to watch.
To be honest, this is really what I'm doing today with social media. I'm knocking on virtual doors and I'm talking about the issues that matter most to people. Sure, I'm targeting where I knock and I have the advantage of knowing a bit about the person I'm visiting. But I learned about the 3R's: Respect, Relevance and Relationships just by knocking on doors in Allston and Brighton. I learned about the importance of transparency and authenticity. I learned that it's not just how you look but what you believe that matters. And I learned that people are a lot smarter than many politicians (and now companies) think.
Steve didn't win that campaign, but he knocked on more doors and won a few years later, and he never looked back. Steve's done some very impressive work obtaining resources for mental health services in Massachusetts and he's been a strong advocate (not surprisingly) for building new transportation projects.
I also remember that Steve's brother, Warren, introduced me to a group of people and a project that eventually and in a very roundabout way led me to my current job.
I haven't seen Steve in nearly a decade, but I'll never forget the lessons I learned from a sincere and straightforward red cap from Brighton who wasn't afraid to knock on doors.
So I'll tag Joanne Bamberger, Jeff McIntire Strasburg and L. Kirkland to keep this going.
21 November 2007
There will be plenty to talk about next week. Enjoy the holiday.
20 November 2007
I mean these crazy kids today:
We know what young people are doing more of: watching television, surfing the Web, listening to their iPods, talking on cellphones, and instant-messaging their friends. But a new report released today by the National Endowment for the Arts makes clear what they're doing a lot less of: reading.
The report - a 99-page compendium of more than 40 studies by universities, foundations, business groups, and government agencies since 2004 - paints a dire picture of plummeting levels of reading among young people over the past two decades. Among the findings:
Only 30 percent of 13-year-olds read almost every day.
The number of 17-year-olds who never read for pleasure increased from 9 percent in 1984 to 19 percent in 2004.
Almost half of Americans between ages 18 and 24 never read books for pleasure.
The average person between ages 15 and 24 spends 2 to 2 1/2 hours a day watching TV and 7 minutes reading.
"This is a massive social problem," NEA chairman Dana Gioia, said by phone from Washington. "We are losing the majority of the new generation. They will not achieve anything close to their potential because of poor reading."
One of the reasons cited for the dramatic decline in reading proficiency is the "all in the background" media consumption trends we're seeing among youth (and everyone else):
Indeed, the report suggests that multitasking is a factor. It found that more than half of middle and high school students use other media most or some of the time while reading, and that 20 percent of the time they spend reading they are also watching TV, playing video games, sending messages, or otherwise using a computer.
As communications professionals seek to strategically place their messages in all of these background sources of media we should also do our part to ensure that true literacy is not sacrificed as a result. We all know that reading skills are directly linked to writing and critical thinking skills. These are the skills people need to excel in this industry and countless others.
There are a lot of people in the "social media elite" who write incessantly about the many tools they use to consume and share information, and how they're now struggling with managing all this content and trying to filter out the noise to find what's truly valuable. Part of this discussion is just silly and a little vain, at least to me - they're trying to show that they can master all these tools and they're managing all this crazy stuff. But part of it is really sad as well - it's a veiled admission that some otherwise very smart people have lost some focus.
The people at the top of our profession shouldn't need a self-help book to develop a 7-point action plan to powerful greatness so they can outsource their lives. (Of course, at least it's a book.) They shouldn't need a 2.0-powered statistical thingamabob to show them where they spend their time and where they don't. And for Pete's sake, they shouldn't feel compelled to tell the world that they're active on a dozen different social networks and have a dozen different tools working at the same time. All that tells me is they have no idea what they should be doing, and they fail to see the difference between "clever" and "strategic."
19 November 2007
Three thoughts immediately come to mind. First, this is the latest example of the Democrats taking steps to embrace this new medium while the GOP appears to lag behind. There's no doubt in my mind that Republicans have the capacity to raise money via blogs - even outraise the Democrats - if they decide to devote time and resources to such an effort. They haven't yet.
"They are extending the 50-state strategy to include us, the bloggers, at the convention," Joan McCarter wrote at Daily Kos. "They are reserving 56 credentials for state and local bloggers, hoping that bloggers from all across the country (and territories) will come to Denver and cover the convention from their perspective."
State bloggers who want credentials must have been online six months and must have written at least 120 blog entries. They also must detail the depth of their audiences to the party, including their "authority" ranking via the Technorati blog search site. One credential could be shared by multiple bloggers for the same site. Credentials also will be reserved for national bloggers, niche bloggers who sometimes write about politics and video bloggers.
Second, the Democrats need to be careful with issuing "press credentials" and treating this crew as if they were journalists. Bloggers - specifically the bloggers that will receive credentials - are NOT journalists. They're raising money for candidates. The party is issuing one set of credentials to journalists, another to bloggers. These bloggers are raising more money than some, less than others. I wouldn't want to be the person who has to answer to the fundraiser who couldn't get into the convention because they didn't have a blog.
Finally, the Democrats seem to be depending a lot on Technorati if that's the tool they'll use to evaluate the heft of state and local bloggers. A "Technorati Rank" can be a relatively useful tool to evaluate a blog, but it can be easily manipulated. In short, your Technorati Rank depends almost exclusively on the number of blogs that link to yours in the last six months. If a decision has to be made between two state bloggers, what's to keep one of them from setting up a bunch of dummy blogs for the sole purpose of linking to the state political blog, raising its Technorati Rank?
15 November 2007
14 November 2007
VVP is a unique and unprecedented approach to examining the blogosphere. We identify the leaders in specific online communities and examine their discussions to see what themes and issues keep pushing to the forefront. Then experts in policy and industry from APCO examine those discussions and help explain why they matter to people, both online and offline.
I'm helping to identify online communities and the leaders in them, and reaching out to them. I'm also working with our developers to refine the tools we create and use, like the "community cloud" generator we're using on the blog this week. But the real value isn't simply in a nifty cloud generator - it's the ability to look at the discussion from a group of community leaders and to apply some top-level analysis to those discussions. The people leading that effort are amazing.
They include Craig Fuller, who was Chief of Staff to then Vice President George H.W. Bush and the former head of the National Association of Chain Drug Stores. Darren Murphy is a former special assistant to British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Trevor Neilsen worked in the Clinton White House, led the communications effort for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for a time, and is a member of the Wikimedia Foundation Advisory Board. And Bill Pierce was a Deputy Assistant Secretary and chief spokesman at the US Department of Health and Human Services. We have more contributors joining us soon, and with the help of readers we'll be identifying and refining more communities.
I thought Bill Pierce's introductory post was a perfect example of how this tool is so valuable. Bill took a look at ALL the communities we're tracking so far - 15 and counting - to see who was driving the political discussion about health care. He saw who WAS talking about health policy issues: health policy analysts (obviously), doctors to some extent, and interestingly, politically-oriented moms. Who WASN'T talking about health care to any great extent? Top-tier political bloggers on the left or the right:
This is exactly the kind of analysis I hoped we'd get from this project. It was something my colleagues and I discussed months ago. It shows political people where they can go to participate in the meaningful discussions on the issues people care about most. It gives people some direction - not the definitive word, but direction -on what issues and ideas communities want to explore. It's just a beginning, but it's a great first step.
On the minds of policy bloggers are issues surrounding patients and doctors, research, information and data – and money. But no where to be seen is talk of SCHIP or Medicare, both hot topics on Capitol Hill. It’s no surprise that political mom’s are talking about health care, since most health care decisions are made by moms. But look at what else pops up, people, passion, outreach, movement, political and advocate, which combined with issues like health, school and war gives you a strong sense of their frame of mind. I’d pay attention to this group.
Doctors sound a little like health policy bloggers, but in no surprise, very focused on their profession, their craft, care and disease and importantly their patients.
Very little of this is heard on the campaign trail or in the halls of Congress. Perhaps this means some of our politicians are going to have to serve some time in the “hot box.”
VVP is a work in progress and hopefully always will be. I hope everyone has a chance to check it out and participate in the discussion about the discussions.
11 November 2007
Under laws due to come into force at the beginning of next year, but likely to be delayed until April for the UK, companies posing as consumers on fake blogs, providing fake testimonies on consumer rating websites such as TripAdvisor, or writing fake book reviews on Amazon risk criminal or civil liability...
The directive catches all commercial organisations - big or small - and the upshot is that companies (including sole traders) will no longer be able to pay individual bloggers or professional agencies to post false or misleading blogs or reviews online. Nor will they be able to do it themselves.
Three things come immediately to mind:
1) They can't be too happy over at Pay-Per-Post;
2) Apparently the United States is some bizarro world where this kind of behavior is perfectly appropriate; and
3) Apparently the UK is more honest than the US but needs a little time to get used to that.
I was also a little concerned by the last sentence of the article:
Whatever happens, the new laws are likely to have advertising and marketing agencies scratching their heads as they think up new (legal) online marketing campaigns.Seriously? The marketing guys are stumped now that lying is off the table?
08 November 2007
It appears as though some other contributors to GO have re-designed their sites as well, such as Kelli Best-Oliver at Eco Child's Play.
I'm sure it's a really exciting time for Jeff and everyone at GO, so congrats to them. I'm looking forward to seeing the final product.
Ron Paul raised a boatload of cash simply because he identified a self-selecting community, he took the time to understand its needs and wants, and he participated in their discussion in a respectful and relevant way. He remained consistent in his message regardless of the venue - online, at debates, campaign events, or interviews with the media. He took the discussion he was having online and made sure he made the same points offline.
Politically-active cyber-libertarians (or whatever you want to call them) have been on the 'net and in the blogosphere for years now. They're not the largest community online, but they're amazingly well integrated, they have recognizable online opinion leaders, and they have a clearly defined set of priorities and ideals. Ron Paul has let them know he's one of them, and the community has responded with its enthusiastic support.
Will this translate into votes in "Live Free or Die" New Hampshire? Nobody knows. But the financial support he's gotten exclusively in the online channel has now given him a chance to state his case in the mainstream media. If he gets 13 percent of the vote instead of 3, he's taking votes from a frontrunner candidate. So those candidates at the top now have to decide if they'll shift their messages or positions to accomodate this newly-inspired audience. If they do, Paul may see his support drop but his issues rise. If they don't, Paul becomes a legitimate player with delegates in hand and an active, vocal community in his corner.
Either way, this online community - of which Ron Paul is unmistakably a part - wins.
07 November 2007
I was taken by two things - a story in the Washington Post suggesting the immigration issue wasn't the silver bullet some Republicans hoped it would be, and a piece by the Cyber Hillbilly on the importance of blogs in state elections.
On immigration, I think the results are meaningful but I'm not sure Virginia is the state where immigration is the top issue. I suspect there are other states that look at the issue more closely. However, this is clearly an issue that has migrated to the state level, and I think this is where the issue will be influenced by more personal and less abstract perspectives.
As for the CH piece on blogs and politics, he's clearly right. We already know more people are turning to blogs for information about everything. More importantly, people are turning to bloggers who share their world view as a more trusted source of information - call it the Fox News effect if you want, but it's real and that trend will only strengthen.
06 November 2007
I'm almost amused at the reaction people have had to Ron Paul's monster day fundraising - leveraging the online channel almost exclusively. I've been shocked since day one that the Republicans haven't tried to leverage the online channel more. I think this shows they can make up the gap they now have with Democrats very quickly.
Are you in Pakistan? Did you witness any of the reported police actions? Send us your accounts using the form below.
At no time should you endanger yourself or others, take any unnecessary risks or infringe any laws.
This isn't the first time we've seen this by any means. But it does weaken the argument that many professional journalists make that their less "professional" counterparts provide content that is somewhat less than ideal. This situation is developing rapidly, and the social media tools that were demonstrated in Myanmar and the California wildfires are already being put into play.
05 November 2007
My column's official/unofficial title has always been "Living Locally, Working Globally" since that's what I do from the Bluegrass. For a while now I wanted to write a profile of people who were in the same situation. Once I met Jonathan and Elle, I knew they'd be great for such a piece.
Jonathan and Elle both have full-time gigs - Jonathan as a post-doc in Pharmacy at the University of Kentucky, Elle as an entrepreneur and instructional designer. They also contribute to one of the most authoritative science and technology blogs on the planet (and currently the #7 blog at Technorati), Ars Technica. Some of Elle's contributions are here and Jonathan's are here.
Initially I thought the column would just be a quaint little piece that featured a genuinely smart and charming couple. But as I read their answers to my questions, I started thinking about what communities can do to attract well-educated talent from across the globe and build knowledge-based economies. I know dozens of economists and planners have already written far more sophisticated analyses of this, but Elle and Jonathan seem to be describing a few key building blocks to really set a community apart. While the University clearly serves as the anchor - it brought Jonathan and Elle here, after all - it also helps to have a relatively low cost of living while maintaining a decent quality of life, broadband internet access, and an airport nearby.
Elle and Jonathan chose to answer my questions jointly - I thought that was pretty neat. Here's the extended Q&A.
How did you meet?
We met, as many couples do, through the workplace. Of course, Jonathan lived in San Diego at the time, and Elle was currently in Chattanooga, but that didn't stop our coworkers from throwing us together--virtually, of course.
What do you do for a living?
Jonathan is a postdoc at UK's College of Pharmacy, where he does research on heart disease. Elle is an independent consultant specializing in corporate training and information development.
Why did you choose Lexington?
An excellent opportunity for Jonathan's career presented itself at UK, and so we moved here in 2004. The location, cost of living, and proximity to several major cities made the move an attractive proposition, and we've enjoyed our time here so far.
What do you do for fun?
We're avid motorsport fans, and so we combine that with our love of travel to go to races around the world. We love to read and watch movies, so we're often at the Kentucky Theater or the Movie Tavern with friends. Elle is also a co-host of Lexington's Drinking Liberally chapter, which meets on a bimonthly basis.
How "global" is the city? How many of your friends here are lifelong Kentuckians or Lexingtonians?
We've been pleasantly surprised at the diversity we've found here in Lexington. If we count ourselves, here in our neighborhood there are immigrants from Brazil, the Philippines, Ireland, and the UK. Within our greater circle of local friends, there are both Kentucky natives and out-of-state transplants which makes for an interesting mix of life experiences and stories.
How global is your work? What do you like about your jobs?
As Elle is an independent consultant, she has clients all across North America. Jonathan is expanding his science writing career, and he hopes to make the move into full-time medical and scientific communications in the near future, which will give us the added flexibility of being able to live and work anywhere there is an Internet connection and cell phone reception.
Do you have to travel often, or does technology keep you grounded? Would you like to travel more?
Elle is fortunate enough to have excellent relationships with her clients, and so she's able to keep travel to a minimum, preferring instead to keep in touch via telephone and e-mail. Most of our traveling is done purely for pleasure.
How did you get involved with Ars Technica?
We started out as readers, but we each offered up our services--Jonathan as a science journalist and Elle as a technology writer and copy editor--on a volunteer basis and have been fortunate enough to parlay it into paid freelance positions with Ars.
What do you enjoy most about your work there?
It's very accommodating of our schedules, and our work is seen by a global audience. Jonathan's articles have been cited in a number of major news outlets and science publications, and our colleagues keep us up to date with the latest news in technology and science.
What can Lexington do to be more accommodating and attract a global audience?
The increased mix of urban and suburban real estate gives those looking to move to Lexington their choice of lifestyles, while the cultural opportunities provided by the local universities and arts organizations give worldly residents a wide variety of entertainment choices. The expansion of the Lexington airport is a welcome addition, and hopefully it will make traveling to Central Kentucky that much easier.
Lexington is talking a lot about the World Equestrian Games as
their "world stage." Are you looking forward to the Games?
The Games will bring a much-needed boost to Central Kentucky. There are some major opportunities there for local businesses and volunteers, and we're pleased at the opportunity for our family and friends to see Kentucky on the global stage.
02 November 2007
01 November 2007
A lot of us have noticed a growing trend in government blogging (the UK's ambassador to Afghanistan is the latest, and yes, David Miliband is at it again) so I've been searching out some political writing on blogs from other countries. I'm sorta going in alphabetical order - earlier this week it was Argentina.
This week I learn via Oz Politics, one of Australia's most widely read political blogs, that Health Minister Tony Abbott had a really, REALLY bad day of campaigning:
On a day that the Government had hoped would be dominated by its $310 million health plan, Mr Abbott's behaviour became the central theme after he insulted a dying asbestos campaigner and arrived 35 minutes late for a debate at the National Press Club.
(insert chucklehead reference here.)
I'm struck by how differences in the Australian political system lend themselves to more accessible discussions with leaders on specific issues. This wasn't the first time Abbott and shadow minister Nicola Roxon have gotten together to debate health care in public. Our electorate isn't accustomed to accomodating a healthcare debate between Secretary Leavitt and a Democrat.
BTW, for those of us in this rankings-obsessed field of PR, here's a pretty clever Aussie blog ranking site.
I've been talking a bit lately with US political bloggers on both sides of the aisle about their relationships with the campaigns. It's a bit of a love-hate relationship right now. A topic for a future post.