We all know of famous cases of Internet-fueled flaps that brought down both candidates and Congressmen alike. There was Trent Lott's race-tinged speech at Strom Thurmond's birthday party, or George Allen's unfortunate "Macaca moment" during the leadup to the 2006 midterms. During this primary cycle, videos of Obama pastor Jeremiah Wright stirred up a controversy that resulted in what some call the most importantspeech on race in America in over half a century.
Now, we may have another smoking gun clip on our hands. This time, the issue at hand is the seating of Florida's delegates at the Democratic National Convention. Supporters of plans to rescind threats to not seat the state's delegation claim that, among other things, the Florida Democrats were essential bystanders, wringing their hands on the sidelines as their Republican counterparts hatched a dastardly scheme to push up the primary (comment 219 on the New York Times link sums up their case pretty well).
Then, this happened:
DailyKos has all the discussion you need, but I gotta ask: where's the anger towards the state party (the rightful target, if there is such a thing), and how long before this gets picked up outside the blogosphere?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, that was a weekend, there. Between the Darjeeling Limited, the world's worst Oktoberfest, and some smiling Irish eyes, updating this thing got lost in the shuffle. Now, though, we're back to the grind. After a relaxing Columbus Day, it's back to business as usual.
Today, my business involves Senator Sam Brownback (R-KA).
FACT FILE: SAM BROWNBACK ACCOUNT NAME: Brownback4President NUMBER OF VIDEOS: 47 NUMBER OF SUBSCRIBERS: 628 TOTAL CHANNEL VIEWS: 501,640 TOTAL VIDEO VIEWS: 418,042
Now, in case anyone hasn't figured it out in the last few weeks or so, I'll say it now: generally speaking, I'm not a big supporter of the GOP. It's not a fanatical hatred or anything; I just disagree with most of their policies. So far, I've approached these candidate reviews with a sense of good-natured skepticism. Sure, I'll take a few potshots for laughs, but in the end, the analysis shows what it shows. I don't have a vested interest in taking these guys down. Usually, they do a fine job of that themselves.
That said: I really dislike Sam Brownback.
Ever since reading Thomas Frank's What's The Matter With Kansas? a couple of summers ago, I have a hard time not instantly identifying Brownback as a typical culture war Republican interested more in smut and school prayer than in effective, policy-based leadership. So, that's my bias. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. Make of it what you will.
Not surprisingly, perhaps, many of Brownback's videos lean heavily on his religious and cultural beliefs. Scattered among the general videos of Brownback in and around Iowa are clips concerned with abortion, gay marriage, and the candidate's own status as a Roman Catholic. For those keeping score at home, the results are "against", "against", and "Hail Mary".
When he's not comparing himself to Ronald Reagan, Brownback does touch on more hard political issues. Though they're fewer in number, they do give voters a better sense Brownback the politician because they cover areas more directly influenced by presidential decision-making.
Brownback also shows he's not afraid of a fight, calling out fellow candidate Mitt Romney by name in a few challenges. Do I smell a scrum brewing?
In the end, Brownback's videos turn out to be fairly meat-and-potatoes in terms of form and content. While he's not breaking any ground, he's also not making any mistakes. He hits the expected marks, but doesn't really go out of his way to get people fire up... or interested... or much of anything, really...
One curiousity that I did notice, however, was the the complete lack of both debate/interview clips and sample television ads. Brownback has the resume to be making more noise than he is in this pre-primary season, and it's odd that he's not making more of an attempt to capitalize on the YouTube audience. Brownback has the second-lowest video count of candidates that have been in the race from the beginning; only Duncan Hunter has fewer. Plus, it seems that no staffers have logged in since the middle of last month. Is Brownback abandoning the YouTube market already? For all of the evil genius credibility I gave this guy until now, it sure seems like he's half-assing the whole "world domination" thing. Really, I expect more from a nemesis.
Tomorrow, we'll tackle the candidate who talks like a civics professor, looks like Jerry Jones, and fundraises like a coke-addled Howard Dean: Ron Paul, this is your life.
Some candidates are known for their strong policy positions, while others rely on personality quirks to help separate them from the rest of the crowd. Then, in some years, when the mood's just right, there are the candidates who are able to get by on name alone.
This next gentleman... is not one of those candidates. His name's just silly.
Here's Mike Huckabee (R-AR).
FACT FILE: MIKE HUCKABEE ACCOUNT NAME: ExploreHuckabee NUMBER OF VIDEOS: 92 NUMBER OF SUBSCRIBERS: 1,097 TOTAL CHANNEL VIEWS: 206,333 TOTAL VIDEO VIEWS: 362,803
Huckabee's video content is quite different from that of the previous two candidate that we've looked at. While his early videos lay out his basic principles, the focus of the efforts quickly shifts to two key areas: personality and live coverage from Iowa. While Tancredo and Hunter both exhibited elements of this approach, neither of them took it as far as Huckabee. When you peruse his channel, however, the difference is obvious. Huckabee's campaign shies away from highlighting the same kind of powerful, if divisive, issue content that the other two seem to favor. Instead, they recast the candidate's values in the light of both his supporters and his humanity.
The Iowa videos are particularly interesting. Instead of using testimony from media talking heads or other politicians, Huckabee's campaign uses normal Iowans as the emssangers of support. They also manage to work in the ever-catchy "I Like Mike" slogan.
While some of these videos feature the same kind of language found in other, more inflammatory offerings, the use of actual citizens seems to soften the blow.
Coupled with Huckabee's focus on the everyday person is his effort to put a human face on his hilarious name. When we see Mike in the newer videos, he's rarely debating or being interviewed. Rather, he's more likely to be found doing mundane tasks, like surfing the web, or just plain rocking out:
Huckabee also takes time to address so-called liberal concerns like arts education, the first signs of cross-party appeals that we've seen so far:
Finally, on a completely unrelated note, here's another hilarious, Huckabee-connected name. Everyone, meet Chip Saltsman!
What has this feel-good, non-confrontational approach gotten Huckabee? Well, not much. Currently, despite his videos' best intentions, he trails even Hunter and Tancredo in channel and total video views. Strangely, however, he still holds an edge in total subscribers among the three. This seems to suggest that, while many people find his message palatable enough to support, his unwillingness to tackle inflammatory, divisive issues may sap his campaign of some potential coverage. I mean, I came out of this experience liking Huckabee more than I thought I would. Then again, I'm not exactly his intended audience.
Maybe that says it all.
Also, nice guys finish last. Just ask Green Day.
Tomorrow, we keep the good Republican vibrations rolling with Sam Brownback, cousin of Danger Mouse villain and anthropomorphic toad Silas Greenback.
The next candidate to undergo the YouTube review treatment that I mentioned yesterday has the eyes of a serial killer and the foreign policy of... a mass murderer!
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO).
FACT FILE: TOM TANCREDO ACCOUNT NAME: TeamTancredo NUMBER OF VIDEOS: 133 NUMBER OF SUBSCRIBERS: 795 TOTAL CHANNEL VIEWS: 437,140 TOTAL VIDEO VIEWS: 514,771
All kidding aside, Tancredo's people are far more involved than Hunter's when it comes to maintaining their candidate's YouTube presence. Part of this comes from simple participation; staffers are still logging in daily, interacting with supporters and posting new videos (the last update, as of today, came yesterday afternoon). However, the Tancredo campaign's strategy goes deeper, and is best reflected in the content of the videos themselves.
Now, make no mistake: Tancredo still spends plenty of time making sure everyone knows where he stands on hot-button conservative issues like immigration, federal debt, and the war in Iraq. However, unlike Duncan Hunter, Tancredo doesn't stop there. Among the videos, there are traditional television spots, staged interviews, and calls to action against opponents both Democrat and Republican. However, the majority of his videos fall into two categories: highlights of debates and interview appearances, and informal, candid discussions about his stances and beliefs. Given his status as a fringe candidate, this approach makes sense. Without the face time or coverage of the other candidates, Tancredo has to get his name into the open somehow. If the media isn't going to give him the time he needs, YouTube is a natural alternative.
However, this approach is still hampered by the candidate's relative lack of recognition. Tancredo, much like Hunter, has to spend the majority of his time getting people to remember his policy, a tactic which leaves little room for spotlights on personal character or non-issue related interests. We get little to nothing about Tancredo's past or personality from these videos. In the end, we may know Tancredo the politician, but we still don't know Tancredo the person. For a candidate with limited exposure, this is a prime example of an opportunity wasted.
Personally, I certainly know more about Tom Tancredo now than I did before, at least as far as his political leanings and media coverage go. I still think he's basically crazy, but I do appreciate his humorous response to the whole "John Edwards and his $400 haircut" debacle from a few months back. If we can't laugh at ourselves, who can we laugh at?
Though Tom Tancredo has little hope for a successful nomination bid, his strategy when it comes to YouTube promotion seems to follow the standards set by some of his more popular counterparts. Though he doesn't go far enough in terms of content variety, the videos are a step in the right direction. In that hands of a more high profile candidate, I think we'll see a very different mixture. Only the analysis can tell for sure.
Tomorrow, head back here to see how the candidate with the silliest name since Dale Bumpers approaches the YouTube challenge. That's right: it's Mike Huckabee.
Since this entire blog was started as a class assignment for my Media and Politics class, I figure that it's high time I start looking deeper into the connection between those two concepts. Thus, it's time for a new project.
What does that mean right now, you ask?
It's time to review the candidates' YouTube sites.
Over the next couple of weeks, I'll be featuring video samples and reviews of the YouTube offerings from each of the 17 remaining presidential hopefuls. As a new form of direct politcal communication, I have a feeling that the usefulness of these videos goes far beyond their scripted content. What do they tells us about the candidates and their campaigns? Why, let's find out.
(Before we begin, I'd like to thank the fine people at TechPresident.com for sparking my interest in the topic and providing some hard numbers to work with. Also, as a show of good faith, I've decided to let the Republicans go first.)
REPUBLICANS, PART I - THE STATISTICAL OUTLIERS!
It's a cold, hard fact of political campaigns: in a crowded field of candidates, not everyone gets equal face time. Sometimes, they lack name recognition. Other times, they're completely batshit loco. With no realistic chance of actually winning the nomination, these candidates are often looked upon with a mixture of pity and morbid curiousity. And yet, they soldier on, and in great numbers. For every glamour candidate like Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson, there are two schmendriks like Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter skulking listlessly in the wings, waiting patiently for their time to shine.
That time, of course, is today.
FACT FILE: DUNCAN HUNTER ACCOUNT NAME: GoHunterGo NUMBER OF VIDEOS: 20 NUMBER OF SUBSCRIBERS: 695 TOTAL CHANNEL VIEWS: 372,889 TOTAL VIDEO VIEWS: 425,979
Rep. Duncan Hunter(R-CA)'s YouTube channel tells the tale of a man who appears to be one more failed straw poll away from packing in this whole president nonsense and heading home to America's Finest City for some reflection, soul-searching, and fish tacos.
Though Hunter saw some early success in the nascent stages of the campaign, he's basically fallen off the map in terms of legitimate candidacy, and his YouTube content reflects that in a big way. In fact, his site features all of the hallmarks of surrender: no one from Hunter's staff has logged in for almost a month, the last content update came in July, and the total number of clips is the lowest of all candidates by over 40 videos. If I'm wrong, and this is Hunter's idea of some kind of passive success strategy, he may be a genius. If I'm not, he may be off the ballots.
In terms of content, Hunter's videos are mostly of the position paper/debate clip variety. The videos focus simply on getting Hunter's own politcal beliefs out into the open, eschewing the humanizing, personal insights and fiesty saber-rattling found in some of his fellow candidates. He also manages to call Ann Coulter a "a very articulate spokeswoman for the conservative view", which should win him points with... well, Ann Coulter. Maybe.
Blogosphere shotouts aside, Hunter's videosaren't going to wow audiences any time soon. The low number, coupled with the rudimentary focus, renders the videos ineffective outside the "getting to know you" phase. Devoting an obviously limited interest to such a narrow focus might suggest that, in reality, people might just not be listening.
Tune in tomorrow for the second half of Part I, featuring Mr. Hunter's fellow unlikely candidate, and the field's resident glassy-eyed nutball, Tom Tancredo.
You don't generally need government-sponsored reports to help you arrive at this kind of dangerous, outside-the-box conculsion... unless you're the Navy, which reveals this and more! in an unintentionally hilarious recruitment presentation picked up by Wired, Boing Boing, and other arbiters of online taste and culture. The report reveals that, among other things, kids are opting out of military service for what, at least according to the Navy, are either selfish or misguided reasons. Other pearls of wisdom include:
- "His buddy list spans the globe. Best friend may be Chinese."
Could be this guy. Probably isn't.
- When you take a generation of American kids, couple them with motivated, involved parents, and add in a few dashes of relative peace, domestic economic stability, and, oh, I dunno, a lack of forced conscription, what do you think you get? Anyone. Navy, go ahead. Yes, that's right. "Narcissistic praise junkies". Very go-... wait, what?
Still your father's Navy.
Aside from being blessedly out-of-touch, this presentation also reveals the military's willingness to at least consider the effects of social technology on their future recruits. Though still generally dismissive of most "new-fangled" trends like online social networks, media integration, and the private sector, whoever put this presentation together obviously realizes that something big is coming as this new generation prepares to reach vote-n-kill age. Whether or not they can assemble a crack team of culture vultures who can really "rap" believeably with today's, or tomorrow's, youth is anyone's guess.
Oh, who am I kidding? The Navy is critically boned. Goddamned MySpace.
Curiously, just as I was about to post this, I noticed a related article on Salon.com's politics page. So that's what this sudden preoccupation with MySpace is about! Pretty sneaky, sis.
The ethics of political persuasion is a business of fine lines and stretched truths. Whenever I tell people that I'm majoring in political communication, the general response involves lots of knowing "aaaaaaah"s followed by some form of the phrase "you're going to be a spin doctor!" While this outcome isn't a forgone, or even desirable, conclusion, it's the first thing most people think of when they hear about someone trying to craft and mediate political messages. Alongside "rhetoric", "spin" may be one of the most villified terms in the political world.
This is not my job.
With all of this in mind, I'm glad to see that some people out there are helping popularize the other function of an education in political communication: the ability to debunk your opponent (or, in this case, all of the candidates at once). This is the aim of the washingtonpost.com's Fact Checker service. Intended to "shed as much light as possible on controversial claims and counter-claims involving important national issues and the records of the various presidential candidates", the site offers in-depth breakdowns of candidate claims and advertising, along with relevant outside information that the original sources neglected to mention. In the end, each story is graded using the "Pinocchio Scale", a ranking system designed to guage just how big of a fib the original sources were offering.
While readers should come for the commentary (which includes a point-by-point examination of the MoveOn.org ad covered on this very blog a couple of weeks ago), they should stay for the chance to get in on the action themselves. The traditional investigative journalism on the site is augmented by a blog-style push for collaboration. As the group's mission statement notes -
We rely on our readers to send us suggestions on topics to fact check and tips on erroneous claims by political candidates, interest groups, and the media. Once we have posted an item on a subject, we invite your comments and contributions. If you have facts or documents that shed more light on the subject under discussion, or if you think we have made a mistake, let us know. We also want to make sure that the authors of questionable claims have ample opportunity to argue their case. We plan to issue our own opinion on factual disputes (see Pinocchio Test below), but it can be revised and updated when fresh evidence emerges.
Suddenly, the public has control of media watchdog powers and, what's more, they don't even have to go to the trouble of creating their own blog as a vehicle for sharing their ideas. The site not only acts as a clearinghouse for political advertising, but it does so through the collective efforts of journalists working in tandem with anonymous citizen researchers. As I said last week, the Washington Post seems to grasp the concepts of Web 2.0 better than some of their counterparts, and this lends further credence to that idea. Whether or not that translates into a major shift in media practices, or whether or not enough people are paying attention to make a difference, remains to be seen.
