To the desk of Barack Obama
Subject: How to win the nomination

Step One – Remind voters that you are ready on Day One.
One of the big points the Clinton campaign was pushing for a very time is that she will be “ready from day one” to answer telemarketer phone calls at 3 A.M. or something. Clearly she will be ready on day one, because her campaign for presidency was ready on day one. Right? Wrong. We’ve been in this nominee cycle for some four hundred days, and her campaign has been a wreck since then. Judging by the lack of end-game plan, Hillary was ready to be handed the nomination on a silver platter. You would have figured that after your rousing (arousing?) success in Iowa, she would have realized that you aren’t just a pretty face. Her nice little victory at New Hampshire probably helped to bury any doubt she had that she would be the nominee. Cruise through a nice sweep on Super Tuesday (the first and ONLY Super Tuesday, February 5) then maybe head to back to the Vineyard with Bill for some vacation time.

Oh, wait. Somehow, you managed to deliver a venerable mushroom stamp to both the Clinton campaign and the notion of ‘politics on usual’, Barack. The Clinton Campaign’s utter lack of foresight was no more evident than when they were left scrambling to establish field offices in states with primaries after Feb5. Her campaign manager got the boot five days after Super Tuesday, but that isn’t the only shakeup her camp has seen. Just this past week the delightful Mark Penn – in typical Mark Penn fashion – announced that he would no longer be Clinton’s chief strategist but will still offer strategy advice and be an advisor to the campaign, and then said something to the effect that this was all a media stunt.

To contrast, you have raised millions upon millions of dollars, the vast majority of it from small time donors who are far from maxed out in terms of donation capacity. A news story wil break that Hillary earned $20 million in a single month, and then a few hours later we found out you raised DOUBLE that. I came across a cute little blog post this morning from some Obamaniac who made a $100 contribution to you, but you rejected it because he is a registered lobbyist. How awesome and respectable can you get?!

Sorry. Sometimes I get so enthusiastic and excited wh en thinking about your Presidency, that I may as well be made the poster child for the “idealistic youth”. Where were we? Clinton’s campaign has been one bumble fuck of a disaster of another. If it isn’t kicking out (but not really) a despicable person who is an absolute shithead (I am looking at you, Mark Penn) she is hiring gems like this man:

Meet Terry McAuliffe, Chairman of Senator Clinton’s campaign. Woops!

The point is, Barack, is that YOU are the one who is truly ready from day one. Your campaign is an absolute success story created from the ground up, built on the premise that mobilizing your supporters and putting them to work is the best way to win. Unlike other Democratic campaigns, you haven’t had outstanding bills from stops in Iowa or New Hampshire. You aren’t holding back on paying employees’ health insurance.

Your campaign for the NOMINEE has been executed nearly-perfectly, and it is nothing if not an indicator of things to come both in the national election and then the Presidency. You’ve been outspending Clinton 5 to 1 (thanks to huge fundraising numbers!) on advertising, but it is time you start to hammer on the stark contrast between campaigns. The truth is self-evident.

Step Two: Win Pennsylvania

It isn’t an absolute must for you, i’ll admit. You could lose by 10, 15, 20 points and will still be the nominee. But if, IF, you manage to usurp Hillary in her ‘second home’ it is going to go a long way towards bitchslapping her down. Keep on the offensive!

Step Three: The Superdelegates

The Clinton campaign’s last chance, but you don’t have to worry much about this one. You just picked up your 69th pledged super delegate since February 5. In contrast, poor Hillary has a net loss of two. She still leads by 34 superdelegates, but clearly the supedelegate momentum is in the exact opposite direction she would prefer. It seems like her superdelegate lead dwindles on a daily basis. Probably because it is.

Step Four: Be Yourself

Duh.

It’s the homestretch at this point, Barack my boy. Keep your head down, your sights true, and your voice loud. Sooner or later Hillary will remember that she can’t pull this off, and you can move on to running a fair and honorable campaign against John McCain.

eck eck eck

The Blackboard Enthusiast

Typically an energetic 20-something Teacher fresh out of college, OR the ever-so-rare middle aged teacher who still has their passion for teaching and technology. This teacher will go out of their way to make use of Blackboard. They will give you completely unnecessary assignments, just for the sake of utilizing the website. When the inevitable ‘group project’ comes along, they will encourage students to use the Discussion Board. If they REALLY love Blackboard, they will grade you on the DB use. An hour after you turn in an assignment, your grade will be posted. They encourage students to download and utilize the Blackboard Instant Messenger client thing, which no one will do. If there is a Blackboard feature, no matter how insane it is, this Professor will try their hardest to make use of it.

The “It’s there, so i’ll use it” Mentality

Professors who hold this mentality recognize Blackboard as a useful asset but they don’t utilize it to its full extent. You’ll find the course syllabus and some useful documents posted there and your grades will get updated (eventually) but don’t be surprised if the information there is accurate. Blackboard is a good starting point for getting info, but your Professor is still the best option. There is a small possibility that those in this category will someday evolve into a Blackboard Enthusiast. Maybe after they discover the glory that is Discussion Boards.

“I already have a chalkboard!”

Forget it. Even if these professors somehow manage to get their class listed on Blackboard, you aren’t going to find any information besides the syllabus. More often than not, though, this professor’s class will simply not exist on Blackboard. They have no desire and no interest in it.

So which categories do your professors fall in to? Share below.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/01/dems.oil/index.html

Specifically,

“Clinton likened herself Tuesday to Sylvester Stallone’s Rocky Balboa character, but said the big fight ahead isn’t just against her opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, but also against the country’s oil crisis.”

Didn’t Rocky end up losing?

Noun [reys] :: an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups

Put the politics aside. Put the polls aside. Stop being a political armchair general. Stop watching MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, and all other media outlets. Close the YouTube videos, the Facebook group, the Donations page. It is time to talk but more importantly, it is time to listen.

The word ‘race’ means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Some might think of their daily grind, rushing from one class to another. Some consider the next NASCAR event. There is one universal definition of ‘race’ for every American that all too often sits in the back of our minds, afraid to step forward. More often than not, an American’s race and heritage is a source of inspiration and pride. For many others, ‘race’ is a symbol of injustice and unfair policies. A consensus on race is unheard of in America.

Race has dominated the current Presidential election cycle for the obvious reason; for the first time in 43 years since the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed, a candidate of African-American descent seems on the verge of winning his party’s nomination. Incidents over the last few weeks have seen the discussion of race turn from just another side-act in the furor of modern politics the a center ring attention that has the potential to to torpedo Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

Like countless other college-going twenty-somethings I have taken an almost uncanny interest in this election. And like so many others my fascination with the election stems from Barack Obama’s seemingly innate ability to speak and instill within me a sense that yes, we can move forward. We can make a difference. My love affair is not so much with the candidate himself as it is the emotion and patriotism he stirs not just within myself, but so many others.

So it was with morbid curiosity that I watched Obama’s speech on March 19 about race. Pundits pinned this speech as Obama’s make-or-break moment; his chance to decisively shutdown claims of inexperience. But I have been trying to separate myself from the overly-dramatic mainstream media. I looked at the speech not as a practitioner of politics, not as a journalist or pundit, but as an American citizen.

The Senator approached the issue with a keen eye. As Bill Richardson eloquently put it, Tuesday’s speech was not the safest approach. It was delivered as a speech BY adults TO adults. He did not sidestep step the issue; he approached it head-on. He set the stage for a nation-wide discussion … not debate but an open, earnest, discussion … on race. It would be a disservice not only to Barack Obama but to the core founding ideals of the Constitution to pass up this opportunity.
It is not my responsibility to sit here and tell you what race means in America. Neither myself nor any other form of media whether it be television, newspaper, or talk radio, should be the ones to determine the talking points. The nation has been teetering on the cusp of progress. I’m not referring to something as minor as a single presidential election; the entire country and her 300 million citizens are poised to move forward to damage our tarnished global reputation and to lead the planet forward into the new millennium.

Standing in the way of this IS the question of race. Americans young and old, Black, White, Hispanic, must realize that we stand at a crossroads. It is time to come together not as Democrats or Republicans, this race or that race, but as American citizens to clarify the past, the present, and the future of this nation.

Anyone with a pulse probably should have heard about Illinois Senator Barack Obama’s inconvenient Reverend. The timing on this story seems impeccable, but never mind that. This nicely arranged debacle plopped right into our laps a few weeks ago, although it was nothing new to those who have been covering the race over the last year and a half. Pundits, quick to shift from fawning over Obama to lambasting him, are demanding that the Senator be held responsible. I know that one of the cornerstone’s of Obama’s campaign has been transparency and accountability, but holding the Senator responsible for the words of his Reverend is a bit cooky.

First, a stunning bit of information you might not have heard: Barack Obama is not Jeremiah Wright. Barack Obama has spent so much time in the last few weeks hammering on this point, that it would be a disservice if I were presumptuous enough to think that I can do a better job explaining. Even when the Illinois Senator delivered his big rousing speech, the emphasis was more on embracing and learning from our differences than tossing his retired Reverend ‘under the bus’.

Some of the Reverend’s most inflammatory remarks seemed to be in regards to America’s decisions causing the attacks of 9-11, dropping atomic bombs on Japan and the displacement of Native Americans. As best as I can tell from watching cable news networks, the Reverend’s point is that America killed lots of people and messed with lots of country’s own affairs, and now karma is finally catching up to the country.

Oh, but you know what? This entire debacle has been an invention of the mainstream media. This is the first real ‘dirt’ that he vast Right-wing Conspiracy has been able to dig up on Obama, so naturally they are pouncing on this story like a malnourished Ken Starr on Monica Lewinsky’s testimony. The most viewed clips that were circulated heavily by Fox News, CNN, and other fine establishments offered sound bytes like, “We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye” and “chickens coming home to roost.”

Those quotes were taken grossly out of context, to the point where anyone who reported those quotes as the Reverend’s own words should be lambasted as failed journalists. These quotes are the Reverend quoting former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Edward Peck, from a Fox News interview. It sure is amazing how a minute or two of preface on a Youtube video can completely alter its contents. Thank you, mainstream media, for stooping to the level of partisan politicking by cherry picking the most incriminating sound bytes possible. Maybe this story was spun (and it’s pretty hard to deny that this story has been spun so much that I half-expect the No Spin Zone to explode any day now) in a negative light because the positive view doesn’t feed well with expectations in America. What, you mean there could be outlying reasons for the September 11 attacks besides “terrorists hate freedom”? Date to dream. Then there’s my favorite, “God Damn America.” The full context of the “god damn America” is even more telling; the full statement was “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human.” Yeah, that’s a real horrible statement we should be outraged over.

Why have we been so quick to lambaste Obama and Reverend Wright? Is it because the Reverend’s words might have a lick of truth to them that makes people uncomfortable? It’s real easy to point and laugh at his baseless accusations of the government inflicting people with AIDs if you ignore their track record of African Americans and STD treatment via the Tuskegee Experiment (google it). It is also easy to ignore the Reverend’s call for social justice: to declare war on an imperfect health care system and a failing educational system. None of this excuses Jeremiah Wright’s abuse of the N-word, but it does provide some perspective on who is telling this story to you and why.

Never mind the complicated history of the situation, where an 1818 survey of state lines was off. Never mind that when you look at it, the state line might actually BE at the Tennessee River. Never mind that a slice of Memphis would end up in Georgia. I’m rooting for this legislation to pass, because it opens up a whole new world of problem solving and, quite frankly, I couldn’t be happier.

If Georgia successfully annexes part of Tennessee to solve their drought problems, imagine what could be next. I’ve always enjoyed the Wisconsin Dells, but I hate the long drive across the state line to get there. Maybe Illinois could annex the Dells? There’s a chance that Illinois could face a massive garbage crisis in the future. Okay, I made that up, but you can’t ignore the face that it COULD happen. I drove through Indiana a few months back and wasn’t terribly impressed with what I saw. Maybe we could annex some chunks of Indiana so we have someplace to dump our garbage.

But really, why stop there? Our country has a long, proud history of annexation for the Greater Good. If it wasn’t for the Texas Annexation of 1845, our fine Union might not have contributing states like Wyoming. Big changes to border security recently means you need a passport to get into Canada. It’s a shame because, although I’ve never been there, I hear it’s basically like America only better. Maybe we can annex some of the best parts? The Caribbean has some pretty warm islands. Maybe we can annex one or two so I have somewhere warm to go when it starts to snow again. That’s what we did to Hawaii in 1898, and that turned out okay!

But seriously. Georgia’s water crisis is a standing testament to the dire need for smart city planning and efficient water use. So please, turn off the tap water when you’re brushing your teeth. I don’t want to have to annex the entire Great Lakes region.

The battle to achieve suffrage for the 18-20 age bracket came to a head as the Vietnam Conflict swept through Southeast Asia. As more and more men were drafted into service, the public outcry for a right to vote grew louder and louder until the twenty-sixth amendment was passed in 1970. Voting among the 18-24 age bracket has generally been in decline since 1972, when over 55% of the youth group came out to have a say in their first Presidential election as a whole. Voter turnout among our age group has dropped faster than any other age group since then.

This trend changed sharply in 2004, with voting from the 18-24 age group surging by 11 percent. 2004 saw a rise in voting rates among all age groups and, just as the youth vote had been dropping more significantly than other age brackets, in 2004 the youth vote skyrocketed more than any other age group. The only other year in which more 18-24 year olds voted was 1972. Did Puff Daddy/P. Diddy’s ‘Vote or Die!’ campaign make youth voters fear for their lives, driving them to the polls? Was it ‘Rock The Vote’s efforts to register 1.4 million youth voters? It is not known for sure, but experts argue over whether the 2004 surge will carry over to the 2008 election. Early indications are promising that this typically docile voting block will be represented at the polls just as well, if not better, than the last election.

Early results from this year’s primary voting have indicated a change in direction, however. Iowa, the first state to hold primaries, saw a five percent jump in the number of youths caucusing compared to 2004 numbers. An overwhelming 87 percent of youth caucus-goers declared this their first time caucusing, according to a report from the Center for Information & Research on Civil Learning & Engagement. The report also indicates another surprising trend: the under-25 voting group in Iowa was more racially and ethnically diverse than any other age group and, indeed, the entire state of Iowa. This stands as a testament to this generation’s unique sense of globalization, which finds itself less constrained and segmented by extraneous factors like race. Just what is it about this election that’s different?

Perhaps the biggest difference that has affected this “Generation of Change” has been the evolution of political coverage. The largest of these changes has undoubtedly been the creation of the 24-hour news cycle. First introduced by CNN and their coverage of the first Gulf War, the 24-hour news cycle revolutionized media. Gone are the days of evening broadcasts as the quintessential mode of televised news. Now, CNN and stations created by major networks to compete with CNN – most notably , FOX News Channel and MSNBC – deliver news as it happens.

But what has the effect of 24-hour news cycle been on political coverage? Aside from breaking news and scandals, the biggest change this has brought has been the vastness of the audience that political candidates and elected officials can reach at one time. Politicians can reach nearly anyone in the country, or even world, in a matter of minutes.

This, when coupled with the connectivity of the Internet, has completely altered the face of politics forever. From the first televised debate in 1960 between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy to the iconic images broadcast all over the country of Bill Clinton at his trial before the Senate, people are now reached by politicians on the American medium in more personal ways than ever before.

But another aspect of the news cycle, especially pertinent during campaign years, has been the evolution of coverage dedicated to campaigns. From FOX’s new real time debate polls, in which the viewers of a debate vote on each candidate on each issue ala American Idol, to real time election polls and counters, turning election into a horse race of sorts has greatly increased America’s input of real time information. Today, however, it is the Internet that is emerging as a dominant force in American politics.

The YouTube phenomenon met the mainstream media when the website teamed up with CNN to sponsor debates for the Democratic and Republican candidates. The Democratic debate was held first on July 23 in South Carolina and the Republicans followed on Nov.28. The debate became famous for a question on global warming asked by someone dressed as a snowman. Reuters reported that the debate was a ratings success, it being the most-watched of any of the previous debates among the 18-35 demographic. The YouTube debate was nearly the most watched, however, its 2.6 rating was edged out by the 2.8 rating from the first Democratic debate. This event drew the ire of Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who said of it, “I think the presidency ought to be held to a higher level than having them answer questions snowman.”

YouTube has also been troubling for candidates; some have been caught saying things they did not want to get out. There are clips of Governor Romney in a 1994 Senate debate where he supports many positions he has flipped on in the last 14 years. There is also a video of Senator Obama praising the way Ronald Reagan communicated his message to the voters.

Another advancement of the Internet in campaigning is on social networking sites. Candidates are using the popular site MySpace to bring their messages to the younger audience that uses the sites. As of Jan. 22, Barrack Obama was in the lead in the race for the most MySpace “friends” among other candidates with 232,739. He is followed by Hillary Clinton with 62,610, John Edwards with 52,739, and John McCain with 42,712.

Blogs written by family members of candidates is also the mark of grassroots campaigning on the web. Mitt Romney’s five sons have the “five brothers” blog on www.mittromney.com, which they pontificate on the race, life on the campaign trail and even trying to sell Romney ’08 gear. The other blog from a candidate’s offspring is www.mccainblogette.com, written by the Arizona senator’s 23-year-old daughter Meghan. Her blog focuses on giving an inside look at her father’s campaign, as well as her tastes of pop culture.

The campaign buzz on the Internet has led to a cult following for Republican Congressman Ron Paul. Paul is a harsh critic of the Iraq war, who also wants to cut most government spending. According to press reports, he has been good at fund raising. According to the Associated Press, on Nov. 5 he set a GOP fund-raising record by raising $4.2 million in one day. According to techcrunch.com, his popularly and the Web can be seen by the fact that he is 40,000 friends on my space and his content on YouTube has been seen two million times.

But none of this should come as a surprise to anyone. Technology has been growing at an exponential rate. Since the development of the television the introduction and expansion of that the Internet, this generation and has adapted to the changing landscape of American consumption of information. And, not to break the cycle, politicians and others who take part in the political arena have adapted and changed to fit the times.

Season one winner: Kelly Clarkson. 18 million records sold, two Grammy Awards, multiple-platinum albums. There’s little doubt that the 25-year-old Texas native can sing. Like a true musician, Clarkson refused to let her manager slap her around. Sources claim that her manager tried to wrestle more and more control over the music, and her performances. The fighting came to a head last year when, for the “American Idol” ‘Give Back’ charity episode, her label demanded she play a single from her latest album instead of what she wanted.

I stole this from another blog

“My label wanted me to sing ‘Never Again’ and I was like, to promote yourself on a charity event is beyond crass,” Clarkson said. “People are starving and dying and I’m up there singing some bitter pop song?”

Season two’s winner, Ruben Studdard. Sold 1.8 million copies of his first album; his latest? 235,000. He was eventually booted from his record label.

Season three’s Fantasia first debuted with 1.7 million copies sold while her second album barely broke 500,000.

Carrie Underwood debuted with 6.2 million copies, and her follow-up album sold 1.7 million copies. Besides fantastic sales, four American Music Awards, she picked up 13 Billboard Music Awards, and two Grammys.

Taylor Hicks’ album peaked at number two and has sold 695,000 copies. It was announced earlier this month that he, too, left his record label.

Jordin Sparks’ album peeked at number ten on the charts, selling 449,000 albums. Pretty pathetic, considering she had 74 million votes in the last episode.

Each and every “American Idol” winner has debuted well, selling hundreds of thousands of copies. While they have proven that they are able to ride the wave of fame fresh from their victories on the television show, not all of them have been able to achieve sustaining success. The various winners mostly seem more interested in using “American Idol” success as a springboard into other careers. Many have turned to Broadway acting. Several have started acting careers, most notably Jennifer Hudson who won an Oscar for her performance in “Dreamgirls.”

2006′s “American Idol’s” live tour was a resounding success, but last year’s tour paled in comparison. Selling a dumpy 68 percent of available space, the 2007 tour fell well short of 58 percent of the tour dates selling out in 2006. The biggest slap in the face came in the hometown of both Hicks and Studdard. Birmingham, Alabama sold a mere 39 percent of the available seats.

Declining album sales. Declining concert sales. “American Idol’s” season seven, which debuted Jan. 15, was the lowest season premier since 2004. The show makes for great entertainment – who doesn’t love watching the sonically-abusive off-key wannabes in the first few weeks? The show has proven to be a great way to generate profits for the companies involved (for now). But as a method of generating meaningful musicians who provide inspiring music and not rehashed for-profit pop tunes? Not so much.

With predictions placing total spending for the final election in excess of a billion dollars, candidates are doing anything and everything possible to collect funds and rise in popularity. The quest for cash and name recognition has lead to a new medium of campaigning.

Youtube has become the venerable common grounds for those wishing to express their political views on the Internet. Videos such as ‘Obama Girl’ and the countless spin-offs have even managed to break into mainstream news. Fortunately, Youtube’s role in the 2008 election has evolved far beyond being an outlet for campy, if not mildly entertaining, videos.

Realizing the true potential of such an open, democratic forum, CNN and Youtube teamed up to present the CNN-Youtube Democratic Nominee Debate on July 23. Over 3,000 video questions were submitted, and 39 were answered by the candidates. Questions ranged from typical (when will we leave Iraq?) to the unexpected (What is the difference between a ban on interracial marriage and a ban on gay marriage?) to the wacky (an animated snowman asking about global warming).

Many questions were phrased in a manner that prevented typical politicking and avoidance, forcing candidates to answer them. Over two and a half million people watched the debate. While it has not been the most-watched debate, the fact that so many people tuned in hint at the development of a new debate medium.

Doug Kelly, the Democratic National Committee’s technology director, believes “the Internet will be the single largest source of revenue for most presidential campaigns – far outdoing direct mail and other sources” by Nov. 2008. In the 2004 election primaries, Democratic candidate Howard Dean raised almost $30 million over the Internet.

The fast-paced and global nature of the internet has lead to the development of an entirely new medium for political campaigning. In the first quarter of campaigning, nearly 30 percent ($6.9 million) of Barack Obama’s donations came from over the Internet. On Nov. 5, Republican candidate Ron Paul held a 24 hour donation drive through his aptly-named website www.thisnovember5th.com, in which his campaign amassed over $4 million. Without the Internet, it is entirely possible that Ron Paul would already be out of the race.

If elections were based on e-popularity, Ron Paul would have an excellent chance at winning. Vehement Ron Paul supporters have filled the Internet’s blogosphere, flooding political blog articles and polls with comments and votes. It has gotten to the point where many of the top blogs have disabled these two features for acounts less than six months old. Paul’s Wikipedia is ranked second-most viewed, being the one hundred and eighty second most viewed article on Wikipedia. Fred Thompson is the leading presidential candidate at 34, while Barack Obama is trailing at 459.

Ron Paul’s Internet popularity is so great that TIME magazine has taken to calling him the “web 2.0 candidate.” His name continually ranks as the top search term in the blogosphere as rated by blog-tracking Technorati. Why is it that Ron Paul is so immensely popular on the Internet? Can this translate to success on the campaign trail? While he dominates virtually every straw poll and tops the charts in fundraising, he is significantly lagging in more relevant polls.

The Internet isn’t all sunshine and lollipops, however. Some criticism has been raised recently over Ron Paul being the candidate of choice of White Supremacist Web site stormfront.org, regarded by many watch-dog groups as the “premier hate site on the Internet.” The group made a combined donation of $500 to Paul’s campaign, and many are calling for him to return the money.

Many candidates have taken a page from some of the most popular websites of the Internet by incorporating aspects of social networking into their campaign homepages. Supporters of Barack Obama are able to register on his Web site and find other supporters in their area for free. Members can create groups based on common interests. Groups can hold fundraising events or collect donations over the internet to be contributed to Obama’s campaign.

As we draw closer to the election, campaigning and fund raising will only grow more rabid. The Internet is only going to grow more relevant in the campaign and, if we’re lucky, the flood of Youtube videos will only continue to come. Obama Girl in ’08!

Staying ‘in the loop’ has never been so important, accessible, and most importantly, time consuming. In only a few short years the territory of social networking, one of the defining characteristics of the Web 2.0, has evolved to provide an almost scary amount of web sites. Ranging from Korea’s Cyworld, where users gather acorns as currency, to Stardoll, which allows users to dress up celebrities as paper dolls and trade them with users, it is hard to believe that there is a market for yet another social networking website.

Apparently, MTV doesn’t think so. The flagship for Generation Y is pulling out of all the stops for the debut of its foray into the social networking arena.

MTV’s “Think” (www.thinkmtv.com) opened to the public Sept. 20th. Almost immediately, the differences between “Think” and the professionals (IE Myspace, Facebook) were evident. Scrolling ads declare “It’s Your Sex Life: These days, what you don’t know about sex can hurt you. Get the facts.” Other ads urged the ending of violence in Burma and discussions of the 2008 election soon followed. At the very least, it’s a welcome change from the radical advertisements that overrun Myspace every time News Corps needs to promote their latest film.

“Think” does not cater to the Tila Tequilas (who, ironically stars in her own reality show on VH1) or the attention-demanding socialites of the Internet. Backed by nonprofit organizations like the Case Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Goldhirsch Foundation, the website aims to attract socially-minded young people to the social networking scene. Listed on the website are 12 main issues, each with a vast array of news articles, activist information and user-submitted videos. Within minutes of registering, I was able to pledge my support for voter education, fighting global warming and proper sex education.

“The ‘Think’ Community was built to catalyze a sea of change in youth activism and make rock stars out of those young people working to better themselves, their communities and the world,” said current President of MTV,
Christina Norman.

It would not be an MTV product without an influx of pop culture celebrities. Pete Wentz of Fall Out Boy explained why they filmed their latest music video in Uguanda. Bono and his infallible sense of style encourage users to get informed about the plight of third world nations in Africa.

“Think” runs deeper than allowing members to declare what news headlines are important to them. Users can upload audio, video and images for any of the twelve issues. Members can also host discussions and post blogs on individual topics. At the heart of the website, community members are encouraged to take action on the issues important to them. Immediately accessible was voter registration information, petitions, and a volunteer search engine to find volunteer organizations in local communities.

Later this year, “Think” will unveil its Action Projects features. Billed as “do-it-yourself activism,” Action Projects will provide a central focus for site members to launch their own projects, from “fixing broken street lamps to ending world hunger.” Well, I guess we all have to start somewhere.

One aspect of Think” that struck was the lack of political bias in the material provided. For every link to “Urge politicians to end the war in Iraq as soon as possible” there was a link to “show your support for staying in Iraq”. Each article about presidential candidate John Edwards was matched by information on Mitt Romney.

While “Think” probably isn’t the best website to keep up touch with old friends or professing your outrage that Facebook is being shut down in twenty days, it certainly provides a fresh and rather welcome take on the realm of social networking. It certainly will be interesting to see how the website plays out in the coming months as more features are added. Who knows? It just might serve as the catalyst that mobilizes young people to solve world hunger, reverse global warming, and finally fix that bump in the sidewalk.