Staff editorial

Every election has a winner and a loser, but the margin that determines a candidate’s victory or defeat isn’t so black and white.

Unless you’re Barack Obama on Facebook’s “Election ’08” application, in which case your ass-kicking percentage is undoubtedly clear. Obama has more than 101,000 votes, Hillary Clinton has about 35,000 votes and Ron Paul has more than 34,000 votes.

Obama’s inspiring speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention won the hearts of many college-age voters and his popularity with the 18-25 demographic has been rising ever since. Some think it’s his good looks and talk about change that draws our generation to the candidate.

I say it’s the Internet.

Obama has utilized online organization and mobilization techniques more effectively than any other candidate in history. His user-friendly Web site not only gives information about his campaign, but also draws viewers in by encouraging them to “make a difference” and lists involvement activities accordingly. Links to his blog and YouTube videos are displayed prominently on his home page. More importantly, he encourages campaign involvement via text message and 16 online networking sites, including MySpace and AsianAve.

While Clinton’s page offers ways for supporters to get involved, it only links to five social networking sites and has a less-prominent YouTube presence.

Paul has profiles on 12 networking sites, but his YouTube videos are not a prominent feature on his home page.

In almost every one of my classes where the elections have been discussed, the majority has said they received a Facebook invitation to caucus for Obama. Some even had friends who said they wouldn’t have caucused had they not been rallied via social networking site.

For years, our generation’s voter turnout has deemed us politically apathetic. The truth is, candidates just didn’t know how to reach out to youth. Now Obama has found a way to connect: the Internet.