Is Obama Technology's first Presidential Candidate?

I was watching a great movie called Recount on HBO last week. The movie stars Kevin Spacey, Dennis Leary and others and is about the Bush-Gore paper "hanging chad" fiasco in Florida during the 2000 election. Really entertaining TV in a day when if it were not for animated movies, we would have little to watch. Reality shows for me are for people without a reality. But I digress.

It got me to thinking, "what if technological advances in voting" had been around in 2000 like they are now in elections? Who would have won? Would Al "Green" Gore have been our President? Possible. Can't "hang a chad" online until 3-D virtual reality comes around. One thing I wouldn't want to see is Catherine Harris in virtual reality, but I digress.


Fast forward to today, Obama (funny how he has elevated to "one name" status with Prince and Madonna) gets the great majority of his fundraising war chest (it is 3X Hilary Clinton) through use of the Internet and the concept of "social communities meet giving". One of the early founders of Facebook has helped design this "technology driven community and donation model".

Hence, since more money brings more votes in most cases, can you make the case that technology, the non-use in year 2000 and the extended use in 2008, is influencing our Presidential election? Could Obama become America's first "technology president"?

Wonder what the future holds for us in the electoral process? Come hear these discussions at the So Cal Digital Tech Forum on June 9 - 10 However, at this pace of technology advancement, I will be voting for an Avatar for President by 2020.

Thoughts?

Social networking...the future or a waste of time?

You can't read, view or listen to any news media channel (Web mostly of course because mainstream old news media pretty much discounts Web 2.0 and vice versa...just like viewers ignore Katie Couric ... but I digress) without seeing articles/blogs relating to social networking, VC "overheated fundings", communities of millions run by kids at Starbucks, and "how many people follow me on Twitter when I say I am going to bathroom." Seriously, this happens.

Which got me to thinking...is Web 2.0 useful or a waste of time? As usual in life, the answer is somewhere in between. A couple points to consider:

1. Social networks are still relatively new. The "excess inflection point" hasn't been reached yet.

2. The phoenomenan will probably mirror the bubble companies in the late 90s...look for 2-3 "Amazon's" to grow, excess bubble and valuations to the moon, then a 95% valuations/stock price crash and no new venture fundings. Then, the companies with brand and a business model will re-emerge and make billions (look at the Amazon 10 year stock chart, it's amazing).


3. The key is that social communities haven't REALLY figured out how to make money. Period. Great article in Boston Globe the other day (checking on my Red Sox who got swept by Devil Rays...but I digress) on this topic. Conferences like the So Cal Digital Tech Forum are starting to form to talk business; not just "techie" hype.

4. Most people over 30 with family and jobs and kids and sick parents and (on and on and on) will NEVER have the time to spend on social communities en mass; they will find 1-2 they like and stick to it. I wonder if there is an inverse correlation between "having a life" and number of hours on social networks... but I digress.

In summary, we all should "plug in" but the business impact of social networking is still in its infancy. In the coming months/year it will - and should - be monitored by the business community.

Thoughts?