Comments on: Hillary Clinton gets her Web 2.0 on

By: girlfriday

girlfriday — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:57:42 +0000

I doubt Hillary actually spends any time soliciting opinions on the web, all her question indicates is that she (or her PR) people are smart enough to get her name into another media channel - this time for free. People who use web resources and enter the conversation can actually read, and may actually vote. It is meaningless that “she answers more questions posted” since she probably has a volunteer doing this for her…the equivalent of presidential speechwriting, which also galls me when it makes people say “The President gave a great speech” - when they are not even his words. Get real, get out and vote your opinion, instead of ohhing and ahhing about something that may not even exist. girlfriday http://www.research-resource.com

By: JT Thompson

JT Thompson — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 22:34:47 +0000

That’s your perogative. But web 2.0 is a garbage hype term and is completely dead.

It’s being driven mostly by wanna-be web gurus and bandwagon jumpers.

It’s hype. Nothing of any substance of any kind

By: JK

JK — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:10:53 +0000

Yo MI,

Thanks for writing about this. I take issue, however, with your casting “web 2.0″ as some kind of teenage phenomenon. At this point, “Web 2.0″ is being driven by corporate marketing — which, mind you, is a clear indication that it is no longer a cutting-edge concept. Nor is Clinton’s web strategy (or Obama’s, or anyone else’s) all that revolutionary — they are borrowing from what has quickly become a mainstream marketing approach. Sure, it has promising resonances with democratic ideals and may ultimately lead to a more representational policy-making structure (MAYBE). But the movement is driven by marketers.

From the politicians’ perspective, this isn’t about democracy — it’s PR.

By: RobertoSucco

RobertoSucco — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:41:36 +0000

Do you think this will make my Web 2.0 stocks rise? :) http://iam.always.online.fr/tr.php?wordid=2296