Trackbacks/Pings

1. John Edwards is on 24 social networking sites » The Bivings Report
   

   February 16th, 2007 at 3:36 pm

2. Is the McCain campaign listening to bloggers? » The Bivings Report
   

   February 24th, 2007 at 1:04 pm

3. John Edwards 2: The Campaign Site » The Bivings Report
   

   April 12th, 2007 at 9:21 am

Comments

1. Benny
   

   February 16th, 2007 at 12:31 pm

   On the sidebar, this is what it says about the Bivings Report:
   

   The Bivings Report (TBR) is a source of news, insight, research and analysis on the web-based communications industry. TBR content is posted, created and managed by internet strategists, media/communications analysts, web developers, designers and programmers, all of whom are employees of The Bivings Group.

   If indeed the reviewer is an employee, and if I were his boss, I would had him rewrite this review. It was not objective as it contained personal comments (close to be a personal attack), “He’s the pretty boy of the group.”

   Having said that, I would argue that the poster didn’t look at home page when first clicking on http://www.johnedwards.com. It is a picture of Edwards and his family. Then it reads, click to “skip to the website”. Then the reviewer is correct, that one sees “ideas” on the first page, along with media appearances, invites to the blog, and about his candidacy. This is in response to what bloggers had to say they wanted to see his positions upfront. I might add he is the only candidate that listens to his bloggers and making it a place they want to have real conversations, unlike the pretenses of some of the other candidates’ websites mentioned by the reviewer.

   If I had to say constructively what could be different to catch the eye, it would be to move the “Meet John Edwards” directly under the caption, “Learn more about John Edwards.”

   Otherwise, if the OneCorps link locked up the browser, he could have notified the webmaster first (oneamericablog at gmail dot com) and complained and see if the reviewer got a response. Instead, the reviewer doesn’t say if he contacted them directly and got a response. He chose to write the problem for anyone to see and his problem wasn’t addressed. But I’m not certain he wanted it to be addressed either.

   Disappointing review. I like this site in general, but I get the feeling the political views are getting mixed up in the place. Please keep your site neutral.

2. Todd Zeigler
   

   February 16th, 2007 at 1:14 pm

   Benny - Tom is reviewing the look and feel of all the campaign sites from a designer’s perspective. He is a snarky guy so his reviews are going to be snarky. That’s sort of what blogging is all about. Every candidate he looks at will get the same treatment. I’m sorry you don’t like it.

   If you were a regular reader of our site you’d know that we really don’t get into politics here. We talk about tactics and try keep our personal political views out of it. I, and others here, have actually been very complimentary of Edwards’ web effort in other posts.

   Thanks for your comment.

3. Benny
   

   February 16th, 2007 at 2:04 pm

   Todd:

   It is one thing to be a reviewer that is looking at the design; it’s another though to include snarks no matter which pol’s site it is. On my personal blog, I can snark. On my work blog, I don’t snark, although certainly I will offer commentary here and there. My employers expect me to be above snarking.

   But perhaps you are telling me it is not a professional review. I thought it supposed to be.

   I offered constructive criticism to counter his comments as it’s not a matter if I like it or not as much as addressing the snark and pointing out exclusions; I’m more interested in objectivity and fairness–from a designer view.

   Benny

4. Wm Babbington
   

   February 16th, 2007 at 3:25 pm

   I visited the Edwards site and was banned within 24 hours after leavning a remark on Mrs Ed’s personal diary about the 25 acres of timber her and Lil John cut down to build their rustic mansion in the sticks. I also commented about the incident in 2004 when Sen Ed gleefully appeared on the Imus in the Morn program only minutes after the Iman’s 2 sidemen made disparaging remarks about Mrs Ed’s weight and appearance (the called her a fat,ugly whale)… A man who won’t stand up for his wife won’t stand up for America. I think what really Teed Mrs Ed off was my suggestion that if choosen to live at 1800 PA Ave she should send here wee darlings to DC Public schools instead of the places where the rich white folk go–that riled her(2 Americas m’arse).
   As a Marine I was also TO’s about Mr Ed’s use of the ONE CORPS logo–when John was 18 the SE Asian War Games were going full tilt boogie and he could have joined in the fun if he wasn’t such a pretty boy.

5. ElizabethEdwards
   

   February 17th, 2007 at 11:38 am

   Vile language is removed from the site. Without having seen the referenced comment, I assume that is the reason for the comment’s removal. I have asked participants in the blog not to feed the trolls like Mr. Babbington, but neither John nor I believe that unless it is abused that people should not be able to post their opinions.
   BTW, as to the radio comment, John was dialing in and did not hear Bernard’s comments. He was unhappy afterward, and Mr. Babbington would have appreciated his response when he found out. Fortunately, that line lost its punch and has not been repeated recently on that show.
   And also, thank you, Mr. Babbington, for your service in the Marines. My father is a WWII, Korea and Vietnam veteran. John, who graduated from high school in 1971, did not have a student deferment but was not called. He, too, appreciates, your service.

6. Wm Babbington
   

   February 17th, 2007 at 7:45 pm

   Mrs Edwards I said nothing foul or obscene and have no idea why I was delisted from your site.In fact I was outraged at the Imus gang’s comments about you and I am glad John was indignant–I encourage him to address this matter in writing with Imus–as Harry Truman would have done. Or to respond as Dick Cheney did to John’s affrontery towards Mary Cheney. You can see how he appeared to be pusillanimous to those who heard those tasteless remarks (remarks which BTW the Imus gang have since repeated). I would encourage him to not come on the show until a public apology is made–that is what most honorable men in America would do. Also as a resident of Washington,DC I look forward to your promise to send your children to DC public schools where your parental involvement can do much to improve these troubled schools and not to Washington’s many tony private schools as so many of the rich and famous do.
   Mrs Edwards,I take mild offense at your referral to me as a ‘troll’ instead of interested critic but as recent events have shown civility towards others is not a hallmark of the Edwards website. I would never refer to you in such a manner.
   Sadly for the Edwards’ campaign it appears that Obama has undercut John on the Left and Hillary on the Right–perhaps another VP shot is in the works? My advice to John would be to drop out early,establish a record of true public service over the next few years and come back with more experience and true achievements to his record. One senate term, millions made in trial litigation and the ownership of a rustic Xanadu are not sufficient qualifications for the presidency.
   Respectfully,
   WM Babbington
   Washington

7. Wm Babbington
   

   April 12th, 2007 at 11:27 pm

   Guess John won’t have to defend his wife’s honor on Imus in the Morn anymore.

   Good riddance to both of these liberal hypocrites.