March 30, 2007
Illinois' Sen. Barack Obama's campaign will make a swing through the virtual world of Second Life tomorrow.The Second Life News Network (SLNN) reports that a real-world Obama visit to a living room gathering in Iowa will be simulcast to Second Life. The event will also be webcast around the country for those who aren't Second Lifers.
Interestingly, the SL version won't offer a live video feed. Instead, what is described by SLNN as "an authorized Obama avatar" will mimic the movements of the senator during the audio stream. GP assumes that Second Life residents will provide the in-game audience.
And, for those who can't get enough Obama on Saturday, Rik Panganiban reports on his blog, The Click Heard Round the World, that an Obama rally will take place later on Saturday at Second Life's virtual Capitol Hill.
Panganiban, who goes by "Rik Riel" in Second Life, wasn't clear on the relationship - if any - between the living room event and the rally, but promises an update as more info becomes available.
Comments
So it's cool that he thinks he can turn us into zombies by coming to us through SL and other tech channels since the traditional media channels have become irrelevant? Reminds me of when Bush got voters by speaking Spanish and promising he'd outlaw abortions and gay marriage.
I don't really think he meant to attack gaming or any such thing, but what I think is that he thinks "Ok so the political system is screwed up beyond any hope of fixing it...why not just have more young people vote, that will solve everything!". What annoys me is that it is not the case. If I had my way, I would have cast a vote for McCain in 2000, instead of having to choose between Clinton's puppet and a inbred retard. Now in 2008 we'll get to choose between another Clinton sockpuppet (come on, how long do you think Obama can hold up under her constant barrage of accusations of being a terrorist?) and some dude who just happened to be mayor of NYC in 2001.
The problem isn't that people aren't voting, it's that there's no concievable way that a Libertarian or Green Party candidate could ever possibly win, even if every youth put down their gameboy and picked up a ballot, and the only way we'll ever get to choose a candidate who will make the changes this country needs to keep from falling into anarchy is if we get to choose someone that isn't a tastycrat or a fingerlican.
Agree'd. Although I HATE Clinton and her flip-floppery (is she for pulling out of Iraq? Gotta check what day of the week it is...) she'd be better than Giuliani just so we won't have to hear about 9/11 every state of the union until 2012.
I'm a hardcore liberal, and I can see what you mean; that in the end, it's only Democrats or Republicans who take the presidency. In fact, I think a problem is political parties in general; hence why I'm an independent.
But there's no way to fix that; not as a single person. Sure, you can complain, but that doesn't really do anything. The way I see it, is best to try to get the least worst of what we've got. And yes, America's absolutely terrible voting percentage is a problem that does play into it.
But it's like this; you can vote for whoever you want, fine. But if you know it's going to be either Republican or Democrat, then the way I see it, I'd rather go for Obama than Clinton or Giuliani. Like I said, might as go for the least worse of your options, if you're so certain (and I'll admit, is most likely) that it's going to be one of the main parties who are going to win.
If you want to hear his views on a lot of the major issues, he has a free podcast on iTunes. I for one will be supporting him and hoping he gets the nomination. I swear, if Hillary gets it...grrrr, I might have to vote Republican, and the only one I like from their camp so far is Giuliani.
That's pretty much what I said...
I don't know much about his policies or social ideals, but so far he seems like a reasonable person.
I meant about that particular paragraph with my earlier comment; excuse the double post.
And he has a neat building...
There's a word for this kind of thing: "Realpolitik." On one hand he may appear to denounce such technology, but on the other hand he realizes it does have its value and in fact know it will ultimately be important to him if he's to connect to the younger voters which wll be very important in the coming election. This is actually pretty cool, as younger voters were all but ignored in the last couple elections and the candidates on both sides did little to reach out to them. Yes, he appeared to denounce stuff like the Gameboy, but to me he just as easily could have said turn off the TV. He wasn't coming out against gaming, it was more of a rallying cry aganst general laziness and apathy. He just mentioned Gameboy because he knew that was something most kids today had. So if anything, I think this makes him even more in touch.
This to me is actually pretty cool, the 21st century equivalent of Bill Clinton playing the sax on Arsenio Hall. Hopefully he won't be attacked by a flock of flying penises!;)
Both should be interesting, I'm sure. I'll try and shoot some machinima of the rally so you can get a flavor of the event, similar to my previous work on the virtual march for peace in January. Thanks for your interest.
...
I, for one, don't see it. So he made a reference using GameBoy, it was for political activity, not that games are evil or technology is bad. He was saying people need to get more involved; I don't see how that's a anti-technological comment simply because he said GameBoy. He could've said get off the computer, or stop watching TV, or turn off the iPod. Instead he went with put down the GameBoy. I mean, I can kind of see why, if there was reason, he chose that one.
Unless he made other comments that I didn't catch. But at least he's not referring to the Internet as a series of tubes
Nothing against the guy but one minute he's a luddite and the next minute he's Al Gore, pick a stance and stick with it!