I recently posted about companies using 'Google Alerts'-type apps to monitor activity around terms of particular interest to them. I did so in the context of my having slagged a company that in turn, responded too quickly and politely to have 'casually' come across my blog. So I assumed they were using alerts. I fleetingly referenced Hillary Clinton, as in
"...they could go Hillary-in-Pennsylvania on your "Bitter" self."
Then things got silly. If I'm too believe this post, Hillary herself, no doubt checking her RSS reader late last night, must have also 'casually' come across my blog, and felt compelled to respond:
"I really appreciate your comment about me being bitter. I'm going to work on that. If you have any additional feedback, please don't hesitate to contact my campaign directly. Again, thank you so much. Take care." Posted by: Hillary Clinton | 2008.04.15
You know, Hillary, I didn't say you were "bitter". In fact, I was commenting on the Obama comment fracas in Pennsylvania. But I find it interesting that YOU think I think you're bitter...
Ah! Ah! Ah! Stop it! get out of my head!!
This is crazy. So there are alerts and auto-responders and now government officials and their campaign staffs are monitoring our online communications and inserting themselves into the dialogue after misinterpreting comments. If she were a brand, and you can be damn sure she is, she's just become the "trendy vicar', "dad at the disco" type that all too often stumbles our way.
But to be fair, here's a test: I'l put a comment about each dem candidate and see who (auto) responds first:
- Barack Obama is a poor bowler and an even worse maker of Feta cheese.
- Hillary Clinton is poor astronaut and she spams me online in my comments section
Game on, candidates. Who'll correct me/mollify me first?
What, no comments? You've been hoodwinked by the reply-bots.
Posted by: Richard | 2008.04.21 at 22:32