Get ready to party, everyone!
A year from today, a new President of the United States will be Inaugurated!

Let the great global countdown begin!

It is no surprise when a newspaper or other publication backs a presidential candidate. We’ve seen it happen forever. The issue that stands before us today is that one of the major media outlets is secretly backing a candidate without letting us all in on the secret.

We all know that FOX’s, “Fair and Balanced” motto is a huge joke, in looking at their far right slant on the news. After last night’s CNN / You Tube “debate,” it seems that CNN needs to change theirs from “The Most Trusted Name in News” to “We Really Want Obama to Win in 2008.” While watching this “debate” it became hard not to notice that host, Anderson Cooper, favored the Junior Senator from Illinois. Not once was he cut off, even when he failed to keep to the topic at hand. Furthermore, it was compelling to see how truly un-balanced Cooper moderated the event.

From ChrisDodd.com:

It is not hard to see that the amount of time allotted to Obama (15:11) was close to 3 minutes longer than Clinton (12:26), and a whopping 6 minutes longer than the average given to all 8 of the candidates of 9.17 minutes.

If you accuse me of being unfair, then I ask you to also look at the June 3, 2007 CNN “Debate” moderated by Wolf Blitzer:

In the first CNN debate in New Hampshire, it is clear that the amount of time allotted to Obama (16:00) was 1.57 minutes longer than Clinton (14:26), 4.3 minutes longer than Edwards (11:42), and a whopping 5 1/2 minutes longer than the average given to all 8 of the candidates of 10.5 minutes.

Conclusions:
I challenge anyone – especially CNN – to take a look at this data and try to conclude anything other then favoritism. When the mega news corporations stand behind our top tier candidates, no wonder the guys in the second tier don’t stand a chance.

I am!

I actually expected to be in the online encyclopedia for something else, but I guess I’ll take what I can get. It seems that someone felt that my post, the Real 2008 Political Internet Sensation: Ron Paul, about how Ron Paul is making strides in the 2008 Presidential Election by grassroots online support, was worth more then just a Digg. The post is referenced in the Ron Paul Wikipedia Entry, under the heading “2008 Presidential Campaign,” and the entry quotes me:

According to Joshua Dorkin at TimeForBlogging.com[26], “As you can see, this candidate (Ron Paul) is fast becoming a real internet sensation, not a manufactured one. He generated passion and curiousity and the people took over from there. I don’t really foresee this guy ripping off his supporters by stealing their MySpace support page (really stupid move for Obama).”

26 ^ “The Real 2008 Political Internet Sensation: Ron Paul” TimeForBlogging.com

I have seen a fair amount of traffic from this new link, but more than anything else, it is a bit flattering (seems like I’m using that word a lot lately . . . see my other post today). I’ve even been contacted by volunteers working on the campaign to get involved more. Seems that my neutral post about the emergence of a candidate has been taken as an endorsement, despite my disclaimer that I am not a supporter.

Back to Wikipedia . . .

Of course, Wikipedia is one of the most trafficked websites in the world, and getting a link on the site is good for anyone’s website. People try gaming the site to put up irrelevant information, but the editors are quite good at catching SPAM. I wonder what it takes for the site to feel that a person, company, brand, or website is worthy of addition. Anyone know?

I do hope to someday soon have an entry in Wikipedia for the website I founded, BiggerPockets® Real Estate Investing Community. The site, I believe, is deserving of being listed. If there are any Wikipedia editors hanging around here . . . please think about it!

Are You in Wikipedia? What for?

NOTE: Just because I’m writing about Ron Paul does not mean I support his candidacy. I simply thought it was important to analyze his growth through the net. I’m a Democrat, but I leave my political views at home.

I don’t think people truly understand the power of the internet in politics these days. Thanks to social networks, forums, and blogs, everyday people have the opportunity to build up any political candidate. The voice of the common man is now as important as that of the broadcasters, and we’re seeing that especially amongst 1 candidate who would likely have been never-known a mere decade ago: Ron Paul. With little money and a slim chance at getting an ounce of exposure outside of a few minutes on a “debate” on cable news, this candidate has become the talk of the internet.

In the past, people may have been interested in what they had to say, but there wouldn’t have been a medium to hear more about them, from them, and to discuss them on. With modern internet technology, things have changed. After their respective “debates” both of these candidates have seen a huge groundswell of support online and we can measure that fairly easily:

Ron Paul – Republican Candidate

Official Website: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
Google: 2,050,000 Results
Alexa:

It is hard to miss the bounce, isn’t it!

Notice the rankings yesterday: 21,775 (and climbing) vs. Rudy Giuliani 96,446 (and steady) vs. Hillary Clinton 61,358 (and falling) vs. Barack Obama 15,019 (and falling) vs. Mitt Romney 63,856 (and climbing).

Here is a graph of his website vs. the major competition. Notice the blue line that keeps climbing? That’s Ron Paul.

Technorati: It appears that Ron Paul is the most popular search.

Digg: Stories about Ron Paul are getting thousands of Diggs. One has even broken 6,000 Diggs.

As you can see, this candidate is fast becoming a real internet sensation, not a manufactured one. He generated passion and curiousity and the people took over from there. I don’t really foresee this guy ripping off his supporters by stealing their MySpace support page (really stupid move for Obama)..

Read more about the Ron Paul Effect (ABCNews)

NOTE: Someone apparently added this article to the Ron Paul Wikipedia entry. Very cool!