<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Tweeting their way to victory?  Color me confused&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.shoutingloudly.com/2009/02/27/tweeting-their-way-to-victory-color-me-confused/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.shoutingloudly.com/2009/02/27/tweeting-their-way-to-victory-color-me-confused/</link>
	<description>building a healthy information ecosystem</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 15:41:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason</title>
		<link>http://www.shoutingloudly.com/2009/02/27/tweeting-their-way-to-victory-color-me-confused/comment-page-1/#comment-9484</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 22:58:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.shoutingloudly.com/?p=806#comment-9484</guid>
		<description>I haven&#039;t seen much research or commentary on what the strategy was behind the Obama campaign&#039;s Twitter account, but I did run into &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.futurelab.net/2008/12/10_reasons_obama_should_contin.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;10 Reasons Obama Should Continue on Twitter&lt;/a&gt;. (The account has been dormant since the election.) There&#039;s some pie-in-the-sky stuff there (e.g., the implication that the people running a political Twitter account read their &lt;i&gt;followers&#039;&lt;/i&gt; tweets), though some of the reasons may be sensible. &quot;Directing&quot; people to &quot;relevant content&quot;? Okay, maybe. You could always throw out stuff like, &quot;They&#039;re voting on HR 1201 today! Write to your representatives!&quot; 

I&#039;d say, then, that the problem with the Gingrich Twitter account written about at Think Progress may be the content more so than the form. It&#039;s hard to imagine mobilizing anybody to action with directionless statements reaffirming general values.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I haven&#8217;t seen much research or commentary on what the strategy was behind the Obama campaign&#8217;s Twitter account, but I did run into <a href="http://blog.futurelab.net/2008/12/10_reasons_obama_should_contin.html" rel="nofollow">10 Reasons Obama Should Continue on Twitter</a>. (The account has been dormant since the election.) There&#8217;s some pie-in-the-sky stuff there (e.g., the implication that the people running a political Twitter account read their <i>followers&#8217;</i> tweets), though some of the reasons may be sensible. &#8220;Directing&#8221; people to &#8220;relevant content&#8221;? Okay, maybe. You could always throw out stuff like, &#8220;They&#8217;re voting on HR 1201 today! Write to your representatives!&#8221; </p>
<p>I&#8217;d say, then, that the problem with the Gingrich Twitter account written about at Think Progress may be the content more so than the form. It&#8217;s hard to imagine mobilizing anybody to action with directionless statements reaffirming general values.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

