Project Portion: Complete!

Today marks the end of the compulsory section of this blog, but that doesn't mean the job is done. Once my project is finished (which, ideally, should come around 6pm this evening), expect posting to return soem time tomorrow afternoon. We're 29 days from Iowa; around here, the fun's just starting.

In the desert of the writer's strike, a fake news oasis.

Poll: Mitt Romney Is Candidate Most Voters Want To Get Into Bar Fight With

See you on Monday, if not sooner.

EVENT REVIEW: Republican YouTube Debate, 11/29/2007

Well, that's finished.

The Republican YouTube debate is in the books, and, I must say, it wasn't nearly as painful as I expected it to be. The producers seem to have learned from some of their mistakes at this summer's Democratic equivalent, because, on the whole, the number of questions asked or produced by assholes or internet crazies seemed to be way down. Kudos, also, for avoiding what I christened the "Stupid Fucking Cartoon" trap. Of all of the questions asked last night, I only counted three that I would place in this category. Plus, one of them featured this guy:



...which I'm basically ok with. I got home a bit late from class last night, so I missed taking notes on two of the early debate highlights. Right off the bat, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney proved their Presidential mettle by... arguing like fishwives over home improvements. Uh-huh. Then, our favorite supervillain and yours, Tom Tancredo, proclaimed that, when it comes to immigration, all of the candidates are trying to "out-Tancredo Tancredo". Nobody out-crazies Ophelia, either.

After that, we have real notes, so... well, here they are:

8:35 - I'm not sure what the question was, but Mitt Romney is suffering from a fierce case of sweat-lip. Bickering on live television will do that to a guy, I guess.

8:37-8:40 - A question comes up regarding spending cuts. Thompson evades, looks hangdog. Ron Paul goes state's rights. Huckabee scores big with a pledge to boot the IRS. Pretty standard, and a nice way to get myself acclimated.

8:40 - Stupid Fucking Cartoon #1!

8:41 - John McCain is booed by Ron Paul supporters for... making rational point about foreign policy commitments. Watch out, because this becomes a trend, and quickly.

8:42 - Paul counters McCain's charges of isolationism with a right hook on troop donations. Back home, we'd've followed that up with a resounding "booyah", but here, Paul opts for looking spooked and pointing to the crowd. It's just a difference.

8:44 - We have a Tancredo sighting. The man has eyes like a shark. A SHARK!


Tom Tancredo in happier times.

8:45 - Giuliani responds to the charges leveled in this Politico story by saying that his spending was justified because there were, and I'm quoting directly here, "y'know, threats". My, what rousing detail.

8:49 - The video provided by Tom Tancredo's campaign features him having an imaginary conversation with Hillary Clinton. I'm sure imaginary conversations aren't all that uncommon when Tom Tancredo's involved. He follows up this corker by answering a question about the safety of Chinese imports with an impassioned stand against toy immigration:

It is illegal to import that kind of thing. The problem is, of course, no one really pays a lot of attention to a lot of our laws, with regard to immigration of both people and, now in this case, of course, items, goods and services.

Optimus Prime just wants a better life, Tom. Really.

8:52 - Thompson's video airs, and the long knives emerge. I know he's desperate and all, but I'm surprised he chose to go negative. Looking like a bloodhound in a man-suit can only give you so much credibility, and this kind of ad isn't helping in the push for more.

8:59 - Once again, we're getting boos for rationality. Giuliani's call for reasonable gun regulations almost gets him winged as 200 angry audience members lock and load at once.

9:04 - Question You Won't See At The Next Democratic Debate, Take One:


9:06 - The camera pans to Tom Tancredo, who wastes the unexpected face time by brooding like Emperor Palpatine. This man is my favorite.

Cue to 1:05, Jedi.

9:13 - There it is. The line of the night. Mike Huckabee cements his lock on the down-home, folksy wisdom vote with the following exchange:

Cooper: I do have to though press the question, which -- the question was, from the viewer was? What would Jesus do? Would Jesus support the death penalty?

Huckabee: Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office, Anderson. That's what Jesus would do.

9:16 - Question You Won't See At The Next Democratic Debate, Take Two:


9:19 - The ad from the Romney campaign also doubles as a sleep aide.

9:20 - MVParents.com gets their numbers from the Search Institute. That's like going to eat at a place named Restaurant. It's just not done.

9:23 - Giuliani's ad is up, and he goes for the humor vote. If King Kong likes him, he must be doing something right. Knocking over building, mostly, I'll bet.

9:24 - How do we repair our image in the Muslim world? Simple, say the candidates: attack more! I must say, John McCain owns the debate over the next few questions. If only he'd sounded like this the whole time...

9:27 - John McCain says "I said 'good day', sir!". Mitt Romney responds by reeking of maple syrup and old grease.


9:33 - McCain scores again, diffusing Iraq-Vietnam comparisons by noting that "Vietnam didn't want to follow us home". If not for Huckabee's earlier score, this might've been the night's most memorable exchange.

9:40 - Stupid Fucking Cartoon #2, and a solid run for JohN McCain, who concludes his power play by not only sneaking in a direct shot at his old nemesis, George W. Bush, but also reviving the old "straight talk" slogan that captivated us eight years ago. Man, that was a strong 15 minutes for the senator from Arizona.

9:47 - This question regarding gays in the military, while interesting enough in its own right, is made all the more interesting by the following fact: the gay retired Brigadeer General who asked the question in the first place, was later revealed to be a possible plant by the Clinton campaign. Here's a better recap, courtesy of Outside the Beltway.

9:52 - Mike Huckabee accepts the support of Log Cabin Republicans, noting that you can disagree about issues and still like each other. For his part, Mitt Romney accepts Log Cabin pancake syrup on all of his delicious waffles.

Really now. How is this...


... all that different from this?


Damning, this evidence.

9:53 - Stupid Fucking Cartoon #2 1/2. Yes, I'm counting the dollar bill.

9:57 - Stupid Fucking Cartoon #3, because slideshows count for half a point. Huckabee regains some of his early debate thunder by suggesting we send Hillary Clinton to Mars, followed by numbers suggesting that, on the whole, African Americans might not find him completely repellent, sorta. Well, I guess you really gotta know your crowd.

10:04 - They're talking about infrastructure, and I'm starting to fade. Even Ron Paul's starting to lose his normal, elf-like appeal. Oh, he's also ruling out an independent run, for now, which pokes a fairly large hole in my theory that Paul is actually just a robot controlled by Ross Perot deep within Antarctica's own Fortress of Solitude.

10:07 - What better way to end a debate on serious issue than with a baseball question? Shockingly enough, this is the one issue that Mitt Romney has made up his mind about. Well, you gotta have something, I guess.

WINNERS
Mike Huckabee - In the span of three weeks, this guy's gone from the candidate with the funny name to leading in Iowa and looking more presidential than most of his counterparts combined. He stayed above the fray, answered thoughtfully, and actually showed some signs of humanity. I may not like his policies, but his prowess for televised debate is unquestionable. It wouldn't surprise me if tonight's broadcast served as a new jumping off point for the Huckabee campaign.

John McCain - Where has that been this whole time? McCain's gravitas factor was way up tonight, and his extended time in statesman mode towards the end of the debate might remind people of why they liked him in the first place. Though it's probably too late to mount a serious challenge at this point, it's nice to see McCain recapture some of that old fire, if only for one evening.

Ron Paul - If fundraising and applause meters are to be believed, Ron Paul is having a rosy campaign indeed. While a general lack of name recognition and the novelty factor of Paul's grassroots, libertarian-tinged campaign hindering Paul's poll numbers, he's still proving that there are huge swaths of the Republican Party not being addressed by the other candidates.

LOSERS
Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani - The frontrunners took some serious heat early and never fully recovered. Now, guys, I know it's tempting to one-up each other on national television, but it doesn't make for very entertaining, or informative, programming. Sniping and interrupting isn't presidential; it's not even polite. Whether it's shifty practices and policy positions (Romney) or not-so-secret liberal leanings (Giuliani), both of the frontrunners fell rather flat this evening.

Fred Thompson - Did he even show up? For all the hype surrounding his candidacy announcement, Fred Thompson has done little to nothing to excite voters about his run to the White House. Tonight was no different. He went negative early, but no one else took the bait, he got out-folked by Mike Huckabee, and, when he actually chose to respond, his answers seemed vague and evasive. Not a great way to revive an already-flagging campaign.

So, that's that. Did anyone else watch this thing?

YouTube Republican Candidate Debate: Video preview

The Republican YouTube debate is this evening at 8PM EST, and I'll be providing a recap with some notes and thoughts late tonight or tomorrow. Until then, enjoy wading through some of the candidate questions that could very well be featured in tonight's debate (except probably not). I'm sure the judges did.

















Because, really, when I think of the Republican party, the first things that spring to mind are cartoons, furries, and Dick Armey.

If you feel like killing the rest of your evening, by all means, start here.

Internet celebrities to government: WTF?

I touched on net neutrality and its growing impact on the campaign landscape a couple of posts back, but I would be remiss if I didn't share this video. Apparently, it's been around for a while, and I'm not sure how it took me 18 months to see it, but that's how it goes. If this is old or uninformative to you, I apologize. However, if I know my audience (and I think I do), then the cameos alone will be worth your price of admission.


Interested? Let Leslie Hall of GemSweater.com tell you more.


Now there are two causes I can support: keeping the internet free, and lovingly chronicling some awful fucking sweaters. Head to their website, linked above, to learn how you can get involved.

And, just for fun, here's a less political recap featuring a few other net residents.

Campaign killers? Net skulduggery and political ads.

A quick programming update before I hop the next train back to Washington. Wednesday night, after the no doubt farcical exchanges of the Republican YouTube debates, CNN will actually air a program I'm interested in for once. Entitled "Campaign Killers", the show is a part of CNN's Broken Government series. This particular episode deals with negative campaigning and its effect on the American political process. While I'm not exactly sure what bases they'll cover over the course of an hour, a press release from earlier this month promises some interesting coverage:

The documentary examines political mudslinging, the history of negative advertisements and the role of the Internet as a viral weapon in politics today.

Nice to hear the Internet mentioned in the same breath with important political discourse that doesn't primarily involve fundraising. One of the most interesting media developments in the last couple of election cycles has been the ease with which individual citizen can personally affect a candidate's campaign. Before this, voicing your opinion required organization; even as late as the 2004 presidential election, the major sources of ads and media, outside of the campaigns themselves, were PACs and other interest groups. Now, anyone who has access to a camera and an opinion can, with a little talent, a few well-placed connections, and some luck, produce a video that can garner national attention over night. While this kind of impact seems like a logical step towards greater political freedom, it remains to be seen how the candidates and their campaigns can exploit this new communication tool.


Sadly, the good old days.

One obvious double-edged sword in all of this is the potential for responsibility-free negative campaigning. Traditionally, campaign ads have an easily-traceable origin point. While people can debate the intentions and validity of groups like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, they remain an identifiable group. Placing the advertising online at sites like YouTube makes that kind of background check almost impossible. Candidates could, conceivably, run a proxy smear campaign online with much less chance of immediate repercussions than they could using the Internet's broadcast-style predecessors. Though the people have more power, they also have a higher chance of attracting focused manipulation on the part of the candidates.


How do we deal with this?

Or this?

The political world has a lot of catching up to do when it comes to internet campaigning. At worst, the focus on user-generated campaign materials signals a potential excuse for laziness on the part of the political strategists. After all, why would they spend valuable campaign dollars on internet marketing when we have supporters who will do a decent job for free? However, that kind of attitude risks ignoring the innovations possible when investment dollars and talented minds collide. So far, this election has shown that the internet isn't going away. Whether or not a candidate can exploit the true potential of internet organizing and advertising in the next 12 months, however, remains to be seen.

That said, have a personal question about negative campaigning: why are the Democrats so bad at it, especially in the general election? My friend Lisa and I talked about this last week, and we couldn't figure it out. During the primaries, the knives come out, and the vitriol spews. Just ask Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards. Once the nomination is sewn up, though, a strange thing happens: everyone becomes nice. All of the anger and frustration that the candidates aimed at each other disappears once the real opponent enters the room. What's the deal? Is it a moral highroad issue? Are Republicans just meaner? What's behind the Democrats' lack of teeth when it comes to advertising?

Your opinions are, as always, welcome.

Linksgiving - A Bounty Indeed.

Happy Turkey Night, everyone. After an entire day devoted to food, football, and lounging like a hedonist, I'm actually looking forward to doing some work for a change. I might have a couple of entries cooked up for the weekend (or even later tonight, depending on how much energy this Colt-Falcons game takes out of me), but until then, it's time to give thanks. Here are a few things that make my world better these days:

- The Capitol Limited. For my money, the best way to travel the DC-to-Chicago route.

- The Vice President, for cracking a joke that's actually sort of funny, coming from a cyborg deathbot.

- CNN, for giving me more things to laugh at.

- The Internet, and all of the interesting freedoms it promotes and defends. Something tells me that I'm not alone on this one. You hearin' us, candidates?

- Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parades, from today and yesterday.

- James Wright. For this, and others:

Autumn Begins In Martins Ferry, Ohio

In the Shreve High football stadium,
I think of Polacks nursing long beers in Tiltonsville,
And gray faces of Negroes in the blast furnace at Benwood,
And the ruptured night watchman of Wheeling Steel,
Dreaming of heroes.

All the proud fathers are ashamed to go home.
Their women cluck like starved pullets,
Dying for love.

Therefore,
Their sons grow suicidally beautiful
At the beginning of October,
And gallop terribly against each other's bodies.

Substantive reporting returns when my turkey coma wears off. Until then, have a wonderful night, and leave some things you're thankful for in the comments, if you're so inclined. If not, I'll see you on Black Friday.

Mike Huckabee Supporter-Watch 2007: It gets better.

First, there was Chuck Norris. Then, Ted Nugent. Now, finally, Mike Huckabee has hit the trifecta of roughneck celebrity supporters. His latest find? The Nature Boy himself!

From CNN:

Huckabee is getting ready to rumble: wrestler Ric Flair, a.k.a. The Nature Boy, is supporting the former Arkansas governor in his bid for the White House.

CNN has confirmed the former WWF and WWE star wrestler is on board with Huckabee, and will co-host a campaign tailgate with the candidate at the South Carolina vs. Clemson football game on Saturday afternoon in Columbia, South Carolina. More details are forthcoming.

Man... I'll say it again: we're entering the realm of real entertainment. With that in mind, have a few Ric Flair clips to brighten up your morning.

Just another fist.

Holy damnit Christmas. Say what you will about his policies, but right now, at this very moment, I'm in love with Mike Huckabee.

EVENT REVIEW: The American Forum, 11/14/2007

Last night, I attended a taping of The American Forum, a panel discussion series hosted by American University's School of Communications. Entitled From Grassroots to Netroots: The Impact of the Internet and Other Media on Politics, the program featured a panel made up of, among others, Josh McConaha and Cyrus Krohn (the e-campaign directors for the DNC and the RNC, respectively), as well as Adam Green (the campaign director of MoveOn.org). For anyone interested in hearing the program for themselves, it's available online right here, and broadcast on Sunday evening at 6pm on WAMU (88.5 FM).

For those of you who're too lazy for radio, here are a few of the key points brought up during the program:

- When asked to comment on the success of online campaigning, many people on the panel were quick to point out all of the great things being done with politics on the internet. Cyrus Krohn, however, gave a more realistic assessment: when it comes to the effectiveness of internet campaigning, it's still too soon to tell. He mentioned the ebb and flow of site popularity, and the fact that we still don't have enough net-mediated elections under our collective belts to begin drawing serious patterns. With all of the techno-utopianism that accompanies a program like the one I'm in, it's always nice to hear someone admit that, really, we're still not exactly sure what we're doing.

- Later in the panel, Krohn had his feathers ruffled by Adam Green's comments regarding MoveOn's lack of a right-wing equivalent. Green's argument was that, while progressive causes like the ones championed by MoveOn tend to lend themselves well to grassroots organization, the right tends to support causes better suited to what he referred to as a top-down "culture of disempowerment" that favors interests and politicians over voters. Though Krohn offered some interesting thoughts on MoveOn's Petraeus ad, I felt that the real counter-example came from Dottie Lynch, who pointed out the internet's role in organizing the Harriet Myers backlash from a few years ago. She noted that, while it may not be considered grassroots, the Republican presence on the internet is still a powerful one.

Also, as someone in my group pointed out, it's ironic that Green would criticize the Republicans for lacking bottom-up, grassroots chops. For all of its plays towards citizen activism, MoveOn is primarily run through ordered, top-down direction.

- I was also glad to hear someone bring up 10Questions.com and their recent success regarding Barack Obama and net neutrality policy. For anyone interested in the site, check it out. It really might be the antidote to those dog and pony shows that are the YouTube debates. Also, for anyone interested in Barack Obama's stance on net neutrality and other technological matters, check out this question and answer session from Wednesday evening.



- Finally, the panel also had some interesting views on the viral video phenomenon that I touched on last week. Most of the panelists were split when it came to deciding if these easily-disseminated, unscripted moments were good or bad for the political landscape. Jeanne Cumming claimed that the threat of embarrassment would cause candidates to stick to the official message more, rendering them lifeless, while Green claimed that this new form of citizen journalism would lead to a "cleansing of the idiots", weeding out the slow and uninformed. Cummings also brought up an interesting point: in the case of viral videos, the subject matter is always negative. Why do you suppose that is? Why don't videos of Barack Obama helping old ladies across the street or Mitt Romney getting cats out of trees make the rounds on YouTube? Are we just not interested?

Anyway, that's your preview. To hear the panels opinion on the youth vote, the internet's role in local organizing, user-generated mudslinging, and more, tune in.

Urr... urgh.

I think I have the hantavirus. Posts are back tomorrow.

BOOK REVIEW: Unleashing the Ideavirus

One thing that I've been really rotten about when it comes to this whole blog assignment is actually keeping up with the mandatory postings. For instance, did you all know that I've been charged with weekly book reviews? No hands? I'm not surprised. Well, in the interests of catching up, here's the first of four belated book reviews.

Today's book is Seth Godin's much-lauded Unleashing the Ideavirus. When I first started reading this examination of the new start of marketing in the 21st century, I was expecting something akin to the starry-eyed proclamations usually reserved for something Scott McCloud dreamed up after reading old Katzenjammer Kids strips backwards while double-fisting purple drank. That is, something revolutionary in its unreality. However, Godin's ideas remain firmly grounded in the implementable, and, though sometimes colored by a little irrational exhuberance, remain solid strategies for marketing in a new landscape.

One of the ideas that really struck a chord with me was Godin's thoughts on access in relation to products and ideas. He notes early on that "one of the dumbest things marketers do is put artificial barriers in the way of trial". While it seems like common sense to say that, in order to become popular, a given object or idea has to be available to the right people at the right time, we don't have to look very far to see that companies still haven't quite grasped this inevitability, especially in the digital marketplace. From the recording industry to Major League Baseball, old-school organizations continue to frustrate users and drive down sales through the use of antiquated, protectionist DRM schemes. Instead of protecting the integrity and pocketbooks of the artists and corporations who use them, these obstructions of use and ownership are simply fueling a consumer-led backlash. Why buy from iTunes when you can slip over to eMusic and get mp3s that are actually yours?


Where have we heard that before?

As Godin point out in his book, digital media, when freely distributed, is one of the best ways to get people hooked on not just a song, but a band's entire output. This kind of loyalty is exactly the type of behavior that Godin looks for in taste-makers from all venues, people that he refers to as "sneezers":

Music execs know that you’ll pay nothing to hear a song on the radio, but if you like it, you’ll gladly pay $15 for the CD. And that if you love the CD, you’re more likely to pay $40 for tickets to the local concert, where you might be converted to a raving sneezer, much more likely to infect your friends and neighbors with raves about the band, the song, even the souvenirs!

Now that I have some of that DRM-rage out of my system, I'd like to turn my focus onto how all of this applies to politics. Now, I think it's safe to say that, generally speaking at least, creating and maintaining the same kind of ideavirus that Godin talks about is harder to do in the world of politics than it is in the world of product marketing. As an example, here are videos from two memorable viral videos that have emerged in the political world over the past few years: the "Hillary 1984" clip, George Allen's "Macaca moment", and




Clearly, these clips had some impact: the 1984 clip generated some serious buzz and cost its creator, Phillip de Vellis, his job at Blue State Digital, while Allen's slip was used deftly by his opponent, Jim Webb, to sway voters in Virgina's ultra-close Senate race (which Allen went on to lose by a razor-thin margin). What made both of these videos so powerful was precisely the thing that is the hardest to recreate: spontaneity. No one scripted the macaca comments, and no one hired de Vellis to make his commercial. Both events occurred outside the realm of planned marketing/image-making, a world which was then forced to respond. While examining the strategies that each campaign employed after the release of the videos may be telling, it ignores the most important part of the equation: the lightning-in-a-bottle nature of most videos.

Godin tells us that, when marketers beat people over the head with ads and come-ons, they tend to be ignored. However, in national politics, a land of ideas and heavy scrutiny, there isn't much room for developing secret campaigns. If you're not found out and laid bare to begin with, chances are good that your plan will be identified strongly enough with marketing strategies that many people will be turned off. For a viral video to really work in politics, it has to come from someplace outside of "the system". Fortunately, as citizens become savvier with net video technology, more and more of these homebrewed political commentary clips will pop up. Of course, it then becomes an issue of weeding out the good from the bad, but the blogosphere hasn't had much of a problem so far, so it's unlikely it'll develop one out of thin air.

Take that, Andrew Keen.

The real problem comes when they people don't want to talk about the same things that you want to talk about, or when the wrong people are doing the talking. Going back to some of Godin's ideas, it's fine when a candidate has the support of influential sneezers who are out there taking their message to the streets, but what about candidates who are on the outside looking in? How does a campaign drum up grassroots support (and content) without creating a little of its own first? I don't know the answer, exactly, but that's why I'm not the one writing the books.

Of course, this doesn't take into account attempts at politics-related humor that go viral. In cases like this, standard rules apply, I guess.


However, other sites have tried to blend humor with genuine campaigning. Some of the people behind the "Obama Girl" video, including actress Amber Ettinger and writer Leah Kaufman, are on record as willing to use the viral credibility earned from their first video to develop other videos across candidate, and party, lines. Call it viral-for-hire, I guess, though I have a feeling that the good feelings earned from the initial video could wear off quickly if we're faced with eight or nine more.


The curse of the one-trick pony?

Godin is right when he notes that maintaining these kinds of viruses is challenging work:

People no longer clamor to dance the Hustle or to get into Studio 54. They don’t visit the once hot jennicam website or pay a premium for front row seats at Cats. Why? Because instead of institutionalizing the process of improving, honing and launching new ideaviruses to replace the dying ones, the “owners” of these viruses milked them until they died.

Does anybody need Giuliani Girl? Probably not. By focusing on replicating the past instead of innovating towards a new, desirable form of video, sites like BarelyPolitical.com guarantee themselves a short cultural half-life. Again, it's an interesting challenge.

The challenge of replicating viral marketing in political forums might be best-suited for local or state elections, where focused campaigns, a narrower market, and a relative lack of big media scrutiny might afford political marketers some of the mystery and allure needed for these ideas to catch on. Nationally, however, hoping the replicate artificially the power of naturally-occurring viral media is a disaster waiting to happen.

For more on Seth Godin, check out his site for more insights and optimism. And, for those of you who love political videos, here's a countdown of the 10 best, according to these guys.


I'll be back later with my reviews of The Interplay of Influence, The Cluetrain Manifesto, and News That Matters, along with the usual pithy banter.

Debating the debates: a cry for mercy.

My last post introduced my dissatisfaction with the clusterfuck that is the primary debate system, but simply putting up a video of Dennis Kucinich being even weirder than usual didn't satisfy my need to vent about, and perhaps propose a solution to, this latest problem on the political landscape.

To put it simply: the debates that we've seen so far this season have, plainly, ranged from unsatisfying to downright detrimental. On the low end of the problem spectrum, the YouTube debates wrapped style over substance in the attractive papers of voter interaction. What should have been an interesting exercise in political participation devolved quickly into a cavalcade of schmucks and amateur actors all trying to out-quirk each other in hopes of their 15 minutes. The point, as they say, was missed.




Now, in the latest example of gimmick politics, we've been presented with the latest ratings-grabber: the Lightning Round! What a great way to derail an otherwise passable debate: with outmoded gameshow strategies!

Seriously, enough. Enough now. This has to stop. I'm as politically charged as the next Georgetown student, but if I have to see one more waste of airtime like this, I'm buying a yurt and moving to Montana. Instead of engaging in real discussion and, you know, debate, the candidates are once again reduced to soundbites. Oh, and often, too. By my (read: Wikipedia's) count, the Democrats and Republicans will, by the end of the primary season, have combined to engage in 36 of these dog and pony in just under nine months.

Wow.

As I stated earlier, I'm all for debate. However, to really catch my interests, it has to fulfill two very important criteria: it must be fair, and it must be in-depth. The primary debates tend to miss both of these by wide margins every time they hit the air. The sheer number of candidates, coupled with the media's maddening desire to turn everything into a horse race, tends to lend itself to exclusion rather than inclusion. Front-runners get most of the airtime, while great policy minds like Joe Biden and Chris Dodd are left to fight their way out of their very own Catch-22 - they don't get the coverage because they're not popular, but part of the reason they're not popular is because no one's talking about them. Thus, you end up with these disadvantaged candidates resorting to sniping or outlandish statements as means of getting ink.

As you might've figured, the well-reasoned portion also goes out the window as soon as you start factoring in the numbers. With all of these candidates trying to make their own mark on a discussion that covers a wide range of topics, the audience ends up with all breadth and no depth. Nowhere is that more apparent than the latest inclusion of a Lightning Round, but it does get worse. Does anyone else remember the debates this summer that actually made use of show-of-hands voting to settle the important issues?



Fuck me. Are we in 6th grade again?

All of this talk about the problems with the primary debates reminds me of what Neil Postman said in Amusing Ourselves to Death: television, at its core, is primarily an entertainment medium designed around selling advertisements. Whenever you try to mix it in with serious discourse, bad things tend to happen.

Now, while I don't completely agree with that sentiment in regards to this situation (these debates tend to be covered without commercial interruption, for instance) I still think that we can do better. An, in the interest of not bitching without offering a solution, I think I have a few suggestions.

1) Themed debates. This would completely clear up the problems inherent in trying to cover all of the issues in every debate. Maybe, in addition to a few all-purpose debates scattered throughout the season, the candidates could participate in debates centered around narrow, predetermined topics. You could tune in to Hillary Clinton explain herself in "The Democratic Healthcare Debate", for instance, or listen to John McCain pop a few veins in his forehead during "The Republicans present: The War in Iraq". This type of setup would not only would this give the candidates ample time to touch on the finer points of a given debate without the distraction of other topics, but would also aid viewers who are more interested in some topics than others.

2) Showdowns. The media wants a horse race? Let's give them one. What if, instead of pitting all of the candidates against each other during every debate, the networks instead devised a system of head-to-head debates between each of the candidates? It could be like watching the NBA draft: each match-up could be randomly selected, giving lesser known candidates the chance to steal the spotlight from one of the big guns. Who wouldn't love to see Barack Obama get into an honest, lengthy debate with Dennis Kucinich? Once everyone's gone around once, maybe there could even be a second round featuring different pairings. With the natural lure of competition that's so attractive to our sporting culture, we could even open this whole thing up to voting. Perhaps an expert panel, plus some input from the public, could decide who moves on and who plays for consolation. Why not have a debating tournament? Maybe it's the NFLer in me, but if we can do this every weekend in January at high schools around the country, why can't we do this with our politicians?

Are these the perfect solutions? Of course not. Do they open up some interesting possibilities? Maybe. Are they better than what we've got so far? Well, obviously, I think so. What about you?

PS: For those of you really interested in the whole debate scene, check out this section of the New York Times' coverage. Personally, as someone who's had to slog through transcript after transcript from these kinds of events, this service is remarkable.

He may be a crazy, but he's our crazy.

With no Mike Gravel at last night's debate, kudos to Dennis Kucinich for keeping things watchable.



Deftly handled, Barack.

Now that's what I call must-see TV. Also, that "lightning round" gimmick was bullcrap; it may even warrant its own post. For more fun with Dennis, check this out. Maybe the whole unhinged lunatic act is cosmic payback for affronting the gods with his disproportionately hot wife.

Serious posts resume this evening.

Boing Boing makes you think about the internet

For those of you that don't while away your hours over at Boing Boing, here are a couple of interesting stories that merit discussion at a more appropriate hour.

In the first, anti-blogger and technology critic Andrew Keen receives a dressing down at the hands of Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga over some of the statements made in Keen's new book, The Cult of the Amateur. Now, it's not the argument that interests me: clearly, based on the examples Zuniga offers, Keen wasn't exactly careful in his research (at least in terms of Zuniga's biography). However, Keen's reaction to Web 2.0 catches my attention. Is there any chance he's right? Are we all just communists pecking away at the established order to the ruination of everything? Should we all just shut up and trust the professionals to do their jobs? I think you might have an idea which way I'm leaning, but I'll elucidate more tomorrow.

Closely tied to this topic is Barack Obama's recent promise to support efforts to pass Net Neutrality laws if he's elected president. Given some of the tech talk that we get from politicians, it's nice to see a high profile candidate actually engage an issue from a relatively well-informed vantage point. Keeping the Internet free of corporate pricing packages and usage restrictions is key to the survival of online discourse as we know it. Between Obama's support for Net Neutrality and Chris Dodd's vow not to budge on telecom immunity shows that at least some people are paying attention. But what does this all mean for users? I have some thoughts, but they'll be up, alongside my review of the Romney campaign's YouTube channel, in the morning. Until then, I'll leave you with this: a potential vision of the future.



Image lifted from Something Awful by way of Boing Boing. Look here for the original article, or poke around here for more on Boing Boing's coverage of the debate.

FEMA, wildfires, and fake news. Oh my.

Just when you think that it might be time to remove the "much-maligned" moniker from in front of any and all references to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), something like this happens:




On Tuesday, FEMA held what was called a "news briefing" on the California fires, but the questions asked did not come from reporters. They were asked instead by FEMA staffers.

Apparently, the FEMA briefing was called with little lead-time and reporters didn't get there fast enough. Instead of acknowledging that reporters were not there they apparently pretended and even used the typical practice of calling a "last question."

The briefer, FEMA's Deputy Administrator Harvey Johnson, did not indicate that the questions were coming from staff who were in essence playing reporters. Six questions were asked and the phrasing and subject matter were not typical for a news briefing give and take.

And, just like that, all of the good feelings generated by the agency's admittedly-capable handling of the California wildfires gets sucked down the drain because some PR guy thinks he's smarter than the Internet. I mean, honestly: how did anyone think that this was a) a good idea and b) something that no one would notice, point out, and ridicule? I mean, sure, the public loves fake news, but not when it comes from respectable sources with a potentially vested interest in skewing the results. It's amazing, really. This is exactly the kind of thing that bloggers love to pounce on. Could a trained professional really not see this coming? Plus, where's the harm in disclosure? Admitting that the questions came from staffers filling in for reporters would've been far less embarrassing than getting caught faking the news without any regard for public interest.

If anything, this whole situation puts a spotlight on our collective media literacy. If you didn't think you had to be careful about your sources before, here's all the proof you need. Looking behind the curtain during these kinds of gaffes is interesting, because they're easy to spot. But how much of this kind of manipulation and/or incompetence floats by unnoticed? If you'd seen the video last Tuesday, would you have noticed something was up?

Though the damage has been done, the response by FEMA and the White House has been satisfactory, I guess. FEMA fired Pat Philbin, the PR guy who was responsible for the conference and was set to take over PR duties for the director of national intelligence (oh, the irony). The White House, bastion of media liberty that it is, lightly condemned the conference, noting that "it is not a practice that we would employ here". Wow. When the Bush Administration thinks you've gone to far, how must that make you feel?

YouTube Reviews - Republicans, Part VIII

I'm about as sick of these guys as you are, trust me. What figured to be a two week project has now stretched on towards three, and it's time to put the fork into the remaining Republican candidates and their YouTube offerings. If only more of them were betting men, like everyone's favorite gambling Martian, Tom Tancredo, the field might already be thinned out and I might actually be done with the first part of this little survey.

Oh, also: we're up to Rudy Giuliani.

FACT FILE: RUDOLPH GIULIANI

ACCOUNT NAME: RudyGiulianiHQ
NUMBER OF VIDEOS: 217
NUMBER OF SUBSCRIBERS: 2,580
TOTAL CHANNEL VIEWS: 678,347
TOTAL VIDEO VIEWS: 868,332

Now we're getting somewhere. After weeks of reviewing also-rans, cranks, and full-fledged internet phenomenons, we've finally arrived at the promised land of political campaigning: the electable candidate.

The first thing that struck me when I visited Giuliani's page was the sheer number of videos his campaign had to offer, especially in comparison to some of his fellow candidates. Simply put, there are too many clips here for any reasonable person to watch in even a few sittings. However, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. For one, it's evidence that the campaign is actively updating the site; though it may be off-putting for first time visitors, it gives subscribers and long-time supporters reasons to come back. By the same token, this devotion to large amounts of content also gives the candidate more freedom to post different sorts of clips. For instance, Giuliani devotes a few posts to clips containing still images matched up with some of his radio ads. While those clips tend to be the least popular of the content offered, it's interesting nonetheless to see updates go in new directions.




Giuliani probably has the highest name recognition of any Republican candidate, but that doesn't stop his campaign from driving the point home further in the titles of his videos. Generally, when the clip involves a brief statement of the candidate's position, it's labeled "Rudy on..." or "Rudy believes...". By Placing the candidate's name and position in the titles, the campaign gives viewers a quick reference point before the video itself even plays.





One area that has serious potential for effective growth is the campaign's "Running with Rudy" series. Designed to give viewers an inside look at Giuliani on the campaign trail, the clips are narrated by staffer Dan Meyers, who looks like a Balls and Shaft pledge and exudes all the charm of a box of crackers. With all of the policy-minded videos and attempts to remind everyone of what an awesome politician Giuliani is, the campaign seems to be forgetting to give adequate coverage to Giuliani the person. These videos are a great idea, rockin' 80s guitar intro aside, but the execution is all off. Though the handicam style is meant to reflect the on-the-road aspect of the coverage, it often comes at the expense of any sort of decent production value. In many of these clips, I can barely hear/see the subject at hand, and often find myself bored as a result. Also, some of these clips barely show Giuliani at all, rendering the candidate an afterthought as Meyers bores people to death talking to NASCAR officials and video operators. Investing in some better equipment, a coherent shooting strategy, and a more sympathetic host might make these videos more entertaining, more enlightening, and potentially more useful.





Those brief stumbles aside, the Giuliani has put together a pretty impressive YouTube page. With a plethora of videos covering everything from celebrity endorsements to policy issues and every point in between, Giulinai's channel is a prime example of what a frontrunner with money and commitment can do with an outlet like YouTube. Though still treating the site as the next step in the broadcast model, Giuliani's page stacks up well with those of his Republican competitors. Whether or not it actually breaks any real ground is up for debate.

Mitt Romney's the last Republican we have to cover. Then, it's on to the Democrats. Also, in the interim, I'll explain my idea for how to put some numbers to all of this research. I think I have a good idea, but I'll leave that up to you.

Link Round-Up - Shirking Academic Responsibilities edition

Before I forget, I have things to give you. Here's what I'm doing instead of homework.

- Barack Obama finds himself in the middle of a flap regarding an age-old tale of gay-bashing, gospel singing, and South Carolina campaign rallies. Earl Ofari Hutchinson has more.

- This just in: Glenn Beck is still a douchebag.

I dislike him more than most people.

- Slate takes a revealing look at the candidates’ use of those new-fangled social network sites. You know, the kids and their MyBook…

- The jesters at Indecision 2008 present their own look at the primary system.

- The Economist likes Al Gore… but not for president.

- Finally, Heath Shuler’s back in his element – losing football games in Washington.

It's nice to be good at things.

- I think I’m developing a big-boy crush on Adrian Fenty.

And finally, from the “If You Love It So Much, Why Don’t You Marry It” department, a few solid articles from Washington Post’s better, onliner half:

- Trippi to Edwards. The ghost of Howard Dean approves.

- Rudy Giuliani may, in fact, be Hillary Clinton. Don’t let him tell you different.

- Mitt Romney and the Liberal Mormons. Coming to a garage band convention near you.

- Spotlight on… Indiana?! Hey, I’ve been there!

YouTube Reviews - Republicans, Part VII

Glenn Beck is a dickpocket.

That has nothing to do with today's post, but it's really all the intro I need before getting on with the show. Speaking of shows... haven't I seen this guy somewhere before?

Excuse me, are you... Fred Thompson?

FACT FILE: FRED THOMPSON

ACCOUNT NAME: fredthompson
NUMBER OF VIDEOS: 34
NUMBER OF SUBSCRIBERS: 708
TOTAL CHANNEL VIEWS: 48,211
TOTAL VIDEO VIEWS: 134,738

While Thompson's numbers aren't exactly gaudy (yet), they certainly have the potential to move in that direction despite the candidate's late start. According to the tracker at TechPresident.com, Thompson recorded a 3.2% increase in video views last week, second only to netmaster Ron Paul (5.3%) and the suddenly-interesting Mike Huckabee (5%). Not bad for a guy who's only officially been in the field since September 5th.

So, we can see that people are watching, and in increasing numbers. But, what exactly are they seeing? Why, I'm glad you asked.

You get... clever movie puns!


Debate clips!


And lots and lots of responses to challengers!






That seems like quite a bit, right? In fact, responses to challengers on the left account for roughly 18% of Thompson's video content. That's pretty substantial, especially compared with the numbers on Thompson's more direct "Ask Fred" series of clips...

...which currently make up only around 9% of the candidate's content. While the run-of-the-mill debate clips and media appearances that make up the majority of Thompson's content all deal with his stance on particular issues, you have to watch all of them to figure out which clip covers which issue. The same goes for the challenger response clips: viewers are generally presented with some version of the opponent's view before they get to see Thompson's stance.

For a late-entry candidate trying to make a name for himself in an already-crowded field, more clearly labeled, Thompson-centric, policy-driven clips might serve as a better foundation. Addressing the other side is a valuable tool, but it's not necessarily one to build a media campaign around.

We're down to two Republicans left, and we'll be dealing with at least one of them before the end of today. Which one? Well, you'll just have to wait and see.

YouTube Reviews - Republicans, Part VI

Wow. What a week it's been. I'd like to start by offering my condolences to recently reviewed Senator Sam Brownback, who announced his withdrawal from the presidential race today. Relic of the culture war, we hardly knew ye.

Now is not the time for tears, however, and we must press on. Revived after a week of loafing, here's today's featured candidate. He's a grizzled old coot, a former POW, and helmsman of the Straight Talk Express.

John McCain, come on down.

FACT FILE: JOHN MCCAIN

ACCOUNT NAME: JohnMcCaindotcom
NUMBER OF VIDEOS: 80
NUMBER OF SUBSCRIBERS: 1,683
TOTAL CHANNEL VIEWS: 491,644
TOTAL VIDEO VIEWS: 622,444

The first thing that hits you when you visit John McCain's corner of YouTube? Gravitas. Yes, it seems that McCain has the market for seriousness cornered. Whether it comes in the form of a somber black template, his stark campaign logo, or video clips peppered heavily with grainy black-and-white footage from McCain's days in Vietnam, the campaign seems fixated on maintaining a sober, focused appearance. In fact, I would argue that McCain's campaign is the first one I've looked at to use YouTube as a true image-builder rather than just as another media channel. Design goes a long way, folks.





In terms of content, the videos hit all of the McCain high points: strong, stay-the-course military plan, ethics reform, and a smattering of mandatory Republican issues like gun control and the role of faith in politics.




Though they've only uploaded 80 videos so far, McCain's campaign has done an effective job of mixing candidate-produced advertisements with media coverage, on-the-ground campaign footage, and policy ruminations. After viewing McCain's videos, I've come away with a far clearer picture of all facets of the man, the solider, and the politician. While the videos don't make me agree or disagree any more than I already did, they do provide a clear, well-rounded picture of the candidate. Once I actually look at the numbers in terms of content type and overall percentage, that conclusion can be illustrated more conclusively.

I don't know why I'm so surprised that McCain's people did such a good job on their YouTube assignment. After all, they work for the man behind the best bus in all the land. It's unfortunate that their efforts haven't translated into better numbers for the candidate or his related site; then again, a snappy website alone won't win any elections.

Tomorrow, I'd like to knock out most, if not all, of the final three Republican candidates. Fred Thompson, Rudolph Giuliani, and Mitt Romney: consider yourselves on notice.

I am not above ridiculing the children of my enemies.

There really are no words. I could try to be funny, but, just... well, let me lay it out for you. Once, you had this:


And it was good.

Now, thanks to the magic coupling of songwriter/poet Leslie Satcher and "the Celine Dion of country music", you can have this.

To steal one from my boy Yakov, what a country.

Happy New Year! Now, vote.

Well, I'm back from Indiana, well-coiffed, rested, and ready to catch up on my blogging duties. Book reviews and YouTube examinations will be up later, but for now, let's focus on what really matters: the Iowa caucus.


Hot on the heels of their attention-seeking counterparts in Florida and Michigan, Iowa's political parties have jumped on the primary-moving bandwagon. Today, Iowa's Republican Party announced that, in order to preserve their state's status "first-in-the-nation caucus state", they plan to hold their primary on January 3. That's right. Instead of concentrating on the important things in life, like 3-day New Year's hangovers or the Orange Bowl, Iowans now have to cut their holidays short in order to get the voting underway.

That's not all, though. With Iowa's move, there's also the question of New Hampshire, a state which, according to the article I linked above, has a state law requiring that "no similar event can take place seven days before or after its primary". While the wording leaves room for confusion (is a caucus similar to a primary? Is so, how so?), the message coming out of New Hampshire is clear:


New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner has been coy about what date he will pick, vowing not to be influenced by anything other than what is in his state's best interest. Holding the Granite State primary in December is not "off the table," Gardner said earlier this year.

That's right. Christmas? Out. Primaries? In.

Personally, the whole idea of moving primaries around doesn't sit very well with me. While some people argue that early primaries in states like Michigan and Florida reflect these states' natural interest in influencing the presidential selection process, there's another powerful lure at play: money. With early influence comes increased campaigning and media coverage, which means more people bringing more money into a state's economy. According to one estimate, the 2000 edition of the Iowa caucus brought between $70 and $90 million to the state. That same year, the New Hampshire primary was responsible for creating 2,248 jobs and bringing in $264 million in benefits. That figure approaches a Super Bowl-level economic impact for a state not known for putting on huge international events.

Clearly, these moves by the larger newcomers aren't being made in the altruistic interests of the national political process. While Florida and Michigan are no more or less deserving of primary money, their actions set a bad precedent. They rob the primary process of its quirks and tradition, reducing the nation's political world of one of its few organic conventions. They also risk expanding an already drawn-out primary season. New Hampshire's willing to start on Christmas; what's keeping Indiana from pushing towards Thanksgiving?

Though I'm as progressive as the next guy, I think that this is one case where tradition should stand as is. New Hampshire and Iowa have a right to defend the customs that help define their states. If other states want a larger say (and a larger paycheck), maybe it's time to examine some sort of standardization of the primary system. Maybe we could split the country into four groups, then rotate each group on an early-middle-late primary schedule. In 2008, Group 1 has early primaries, followed by Group 2, Group 3, and Group 4. Then, in 2012, Group 2 steps up as the first primary states, followed by Group 3, Group 4, and Group 1. You get the picture. A system like that is the only way to keep opportunistic state governments from hijacking the primary process for their own monetary gain and political self-interest.

Of course, according to Dick Morris, the whole thing could be rendered moot if a certain someone chooses to run. Personally, I'm pulling for this guy.

Homeward Bound

Like this, but much, much smaller.

I'm headed home for the weekend, so posting might be sporadic. I'd still like to finish the Republican YouTube reviews by the end of the weekend, but who knows if that'll actually happen.

Link Roundup: Too Hot For October Edition

Before we get back to the YouTube rounds, I thought a little link roundup might be in order. Here are the stories piquing my interest today:

- Bush administration to intelligence community – GSO.
- Mike Huckabee to other candidates – kill yourselves.
- Lou Dobbs to everyone – wear that fucking pin.
- Amazon to willing customers - Whoop! Dart in yer neck!
- Senate to bloggers – you guys are pretty ok.

The first one’s depressing, the next two are puzzling, the fourth is predictable, and the last one is a relief, I guess. It’s good to know I won’t have to reveal my sources in the event of a hypothetical “shit goes down” scenario. Something tells me they wouldn’t take to that very well.

Also, in case anyone’s interested, there’s an ongoing interactive Q&A session with this year’s presidential candidates going on now at washingtonpost.com. Participants include four of the ones already featured in my ongoing YouTube analysis project, so if you have any burning questions, by all means, fire away.

Finally, as per class instructions, here’s my entry into the independently-created candidate endorsement video. From YouTube user Shane Killian:



Am I… am I becoming a Ron Paul fanboy? Oh, the humanity.

YouTube Reviews - Republicans, Part V

I've been using this space to both introduce and poke fun at each day's candidate, but I don't really have anything bad to say this time. Go figure.

Ron Paul (R-TX), everyone. Everyone, Ron Paul.

FACT FILE: RON PAUL

ACCOUNT NAME: RonPaul2008dotcom
NUMBER OF VIDEOS: 52
NUMBER OF SUBSCRIBERS: 30,914
TOTAL CHANNEL VIEWS: 4,446,171
TOTAL VIDEO VIEWS: 4,453,824

In the time since politicians first began embracing the idea of the online campaign, few candidates have clicked with the Internet set as well as Ron Paul. With his mixture of small government common sense and noninterventionist foreign policy, Paul is certainly a different breed of Republican than most of his fellow candidates. He's also the most popular - at least online. When compared with even the most high-profile, big-money opponent, Paul's numbers still shine. According to TechPresident's numbers, he has the most active supporters on MySpace and Facebook of any Republican candidate. His success with YouTube is even greater; his stat of 4 million+ channel views bests that of his nearest competitor - the Democrat's Barack Obama - by almost a full million hits. Coupled with his recent eyebrow-raising fundraising efforts, these numbers may offer more than just nice-looking statistics after all.

Clearly, there's something about this seemingly mild-mannered congressman that has people talking. The question is: does the content of his videos reflect this popularity? How different is it from the content of his less successful rivals? What part is YouTube playing in the whole race, anyway?

Well, let's find out.

While Paul videos don't completely break the mold in terms of breathtakingly innovative content, he does take an interesting approach to getting his message out. While he does rely on the typical, position paper-style policy videos, he leans heavily on other people to get his message out. The results cast Paul in the light of common sense and reason in the face of political shiftiness.






Paul's folk hero mythos isn't just manufactured by his own staff, however. His campaign also makes it a point to cull media clips that refer favorably to Paul's grassroots effort.





That Paul has been able to capture the underdog appeal inherent in his run through the competitive atmosphere of campaign season speaks to both the appeal of his message and the effectiveness of his media strategy. Unlike many of the other candidates who seem to have a YouTube account simply because that's what their opponent is doing, Paul's online efforts have been well-coordinated, persuasively edited, and, ultimately, exposure-worthy.

Paul's less-is-more approach (the campaign's total video count is one of the lowest of contenders from either party) works because of the unified messages and imagery that underpins each video. Though his clips of interviews and rallys don't contain anything new, per se, they have the focus and unified voice lacking in many of the other candidate's offerings. Individually, each one is persuasive enough. Together, however, they form a cohesive, united picture of a true "people's candidate". Also, they have a music video.



That Paul's campaign avoids the temptation of tangential or unnecessary updates illustrates his commitment to online image management. With a YouTube channel that is both streamlined and popular, Paul is in as good a position as any of the middle-pack Republican candidates to make a late move towards the nomination. Whether or not his grassroots message, and its YouTube outlet, changes along the way remains to be seen.

Tomorrow's a toughie. I loved this guy so much in 2000, and I still do, in a way. Just... man...

It's the Straight-Talker himself. It's John McCain.