The Web on the Candidates

Michael Falcone at the Caucus rounds up the blogosphere's reaction to news that two of John McCain's top aides were quitting his campaign. Patrick Ruffini and Matt Lewis of Townhall.com share the opinion that McCain failed to put a top aide in charge. "The worst case scenario for any political campaign is for there to be confusion about who is in charge," said Lewis. "Ironically, campaigns are not democracies, they are dictatorships. Let this serve as a lesson that leadership by committee doesn't work in the political battlefield." Falcone also links to comments from Powerline's Paul Mirengott and MyDD's Jonathan Singer, which add to the general sense that McCain's campaign is close to finished.

The New Republic's Michelle Cottle responds to Hillary Clinton's HillCam emails with a much-needed dose of reality: "Come on, guys. I know you want to warm up your gal's image. And I'll admit that she looks cute as a button in that sunshine-yellow top, sucking down soda at the Grinnell Dairy Queen. But don't ask me to believe that these adorable mini movies are any less contrived than an old-fashioned TV ad. Just because you have jittery camera work and zero production values doesn't make your offering 'spontaneous.'" Cottle's assault on "phony Web authenticity" extends beyond Clinton to all of the other candidates and to proclamations about how the Internet is changing campaigning. "Indeed, thus far, what has struck me most about the Brave New World of virtual campaigning is how much it resembles the Tiresome Old World of actual campaigning. Now, instead of relying on scripted debate answers, impersonal rallies, and slick television ads to get to know our candidates, we can turn to scripted blog posts, impersonal e-mails, and slick webcasts." This is not to say that the Internet isn't changing campaigning; but, as Cottle points out, despite the new tools at their disposal, the candidates are still much more comfortable giving the appearance of authenticity than actually being authentic. [Unfortunately, TNR online is subscription-only, so you'll have to register to read the whole thing.]

The Web on the Candidates

Barack Obama's campaign has gone viral, writes Time's Karen Tumulty. "No campaign has been more aggressive in tapping into social networks and leveraging the financial power of hundreds of thousands of small donors," she says. While Obama has been the most successful at utilizing the web to generate micro-donations from 258,000 supporters in the first two quarters of the year, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are also trying their hand at smaller donations and larger communities. After Edwards advisor Joe Trippi made his amusing video of himself baking a pecan pie (Tumulty called it "embarrassingly awkward") with fellow advisor Jonathan Prince, $300,000 came into the campaign, with donations as small as $6.10.

Karen E. Crummy at the Denver Post has discovered two spoof websites that claim to support Sam Brownback. For example, at Baptists for Brownback 2008 you'll read that Brownback believes that the earth is flat, refers to rapes as "unplanned sexual events," and other untruths. Another site, Blogs 4 Brownback, traffics in the same kind of material. Both sites exhibit a kind of comic version of conservatism, making inaccurate, and, depending on your point of view, funny or offensive claims about Brownback's political and religious beliefs. While these sorts of sites present a message control problem for the candidates, Crummy writes that "the impact of parody or critical websites is unclear. In the case of the Brownback sites, some bloggers have bought into the rhetoric and dismissed Brownback and his campaign as 'wingnuts.'" But Richard Davis of Brigham Young University doesn't think they make much of a difference. "Sites like these don't sway undecided voters or push away (Brownback's) supporters. I think the biggest effect is that it's embarrassing for the candidate."

The Web on the Candidates

As we've previously mentioned, CNN and YouTube are co-sponsoring an upcoming Democratic presidential debate on July 23 in Charleston, SC. In a new video announcement, CNN's Anderson Cooper and YouTube's Steve Grove describe the format. YouTube users will submit videos to the site, and some of those will be used as questions for the debate, which will be hosted by Cooper. Another video shows examples of the kind of entries the co-sponsors are looking for: creative videos with red-meat questions about predatory lending in low-income neighborhoods, veteran's benefits, and healthcare.

While it will be interesting to see YouTube move concretely into the political sphere, is this really going to change the tone of the debates in which, as the New York Times' Katherine Seelye describes it, "a guy in a suit asks mostly predictable questions of other suits. The voter is a fixture in the audience, motionless until he or she gets to address the candidate, briefly and respectfully. Everything is choreographed"? She thinks it might, since "the video format opens the door for originality and spontaneity — elements usually foreign to the controlled environment of presidential image-making." All of the Democratic candidates have signed up for the debate, which is the first "official" Democratic debate in that it is being coordinated by the DNC. In the Times piece, Matt Lewis of Townhall recommends that risk-averse Republicans get involved too. "Technology will happen, and the question is whether it will happen for you or to you," he said, paraphrasing Tom Friedman from this year's PdF conference.

The Web on the Candidates

Someone on the Hillary Clinton campaign is obviously leaking stories to Drudge, says Patrick Ruffini. His proof? A Drudge exclusive claiming that Clinton is on track to exceed her first-quarter earnings. Drudge makes it clear as day that this story is a World Exclusive, which does raise the question of who's passing on this information...

Meanwhile, Election Geek is finding major discrepancies between the Drudge story and a Huffington Post story claiming that Clinton has maxed out her big donors and is struggling to keep up with small donations. "So which one is it?" Geek asks. His opinion: "Clinton had a massive donor database she didn’t even come close to tapping. The prevailing wisdom 'out there' was that everyone jumped ship to Obama. My own thought? She purposely didn’t tap that list knowing they were going to do well in Q1 and saved more big donations for Q2."

The Web on the Candidates

• Over at TechRepublican, Jim Durbin writes that the way for conservatives to match the energy of the left-wing netroots is to strongly convey Republican messages online. The key, says Durbin, is to stay on message on blogs, discussion boards, social networking sites, everywhere: "If you believe as I do, that our strength is in our reasoned approach to issues - mainly that in winning the arguments, we'll win the elections, than the strategy is simple." Durbin takes for granted that people will simply be won over by better arguments -- there are actually ideologies and political beliefs at stake here -- and his position that "the reasoned argument on the left is outweighed by emotion. On the right, reasoned argument is actually our strength," is not so reasonable in itself... But we give him credit for seeking out ways to invigorate online conservatives.
| Read more ...

The Web on the Candidates

Blogpac, a group comprised of MyDDers Matt Stoller, Chris Bowers, and Mike Stark that gives grants to online progressive activists, has awarded $1000 to former John Edwards blogger Amanda Marcotte "for her courage in the face of an irresponsible media." Earlier this year, a mini-scandal erupted after conservatives criticized comments Marcotte had written on her Pandagon blog before she was hired by the Edwards campaign. In the post announcing the award, Mike Stark gives us Marcotte's story, from the time she was hired by the campaign (she was working as a financial aid counselor at UT-Austin) to how the cable news sites helped blow the thing out of proportion to how and why she resigned from the campaign.

Jose Antonio Vargas of the Washington Post explains that the Democrats are beating the GOP online, getting more traffic, raising more money, and gaining more popularity on the "social-networking triumvirate" of Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube. TechPresident's Mike Turk says that it goes beyond using the right technologies. "They've all got Web sites. Yes, they're doing videos. Yes, some are blogging. But that's not enough to really connect with voters." And while Republicans are fighting back, with TechPresident's David All forming TechRepublican and former Reagan campaign aide Charlie Gerow starting QubeTV to counter what he calls the "liberal bias" of YouTube, All says "for the most part Republicans are stuck in Internet circa 2000."

The Web on the Candidates

Over at Hotline's On the Download, Shira Toeplitz has a detailed list of how much the candidates are spending online -- both for their web teams and for their sites -- and who they're paying, compiling the first-quarter FEC reports and getting the lowdown herself on who's working where. Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton are the biggest spenders, paying $412,000 and $202,000 respectively for their web sites in the first quarter. Dennis Kucinich spent the largest percentage of his budget on his web site, and Chris Dodd and Barack Obama get the most bang for their buck. "Both had Senate Web sites off which they could build, but presentation and features are certainly above par for their price tag." And what's worse, Duncan Hunter and Tommy Thompson having no online staffers at all, or Tom Tancredo paying his one staff member $600?

With news that Rudy Giuliani is planning to "offer a forthright affirmation of his support for abortion rights in public forums, television appearances and interviews in the coming days," various interest groups have been voicing opposition to his candidacy, perhaps none as vehemently as the New York ferret lobby, which produced this vicious attack ad called "Ferrets for Freedom" that protests Giuliani's ban on ferrets in New York City in 1999. "People have killed more people than ferrets, so they should ban people, not ferrets," exclaims one outraged ferret. (Hat tip to AirCongress and PrezVid) | Read more ...

The Web on the Candidates

Über-TechPresident blogger David All has started a new blog, TechRepublican.com (nice name David!) that wants to get the Republican establishment to embrace Web 2.0 strategies. "While the Internet has grown rapidly, the Party apparatus and its top officials are operating in a disconnected, Web 0.5 world. The result is that our message is failing to penetrate the modern world where millions of independent voters and modern Republicans spend a majority of their time," All writes. All and friends want to galvanize "Gen Nexters" (ooh, that term hurts) to "think, discuss, read, collaborate, criticize, share, and act to make a difference" in the Republican Party, and to usher the party into the 21st century. It's big project that will benefit from David's bottomless well of energy. We wish him luck.

Following up on his analysis of who's buying Google text ads for Democratic candidates, Steve Patterson of the Bivings Report takes a look at who's buying ads for the Republicans. In addition to gear from Zazzle.com, several of the candidates are buying ads under others' names. For example, Rudy Giuliani is buying ads for searches for himself, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and John McCain, and only Giuliani and McCain are taking out ads against their own sites.

The Web on the Candidates

Mitt Romney's appearance in YouTube's Spotlight series has been a a big success, writes the TubeMogul blog. His video views have skyrocketed -- "looking at Mitt’s own YouTube views, it almost looks as if he wasn’t online prior to that video – he went from about 3K views a day to 125K on 4/13!" It's interesting that although Romney's videos have peaked at around 125,000 views, they've since fallen to around 40,000 views a day. "From a little analysis you can find that the majority of Romney’s views were for his one video asking for information, not on videos where planks of his platform are espoused. Will Mitt be able to continue the debate on YouTube with the energy he just started?," TubeMogul writes.

At the National Association of Broadcasters/Radio Television News Directors Association in Las Vegas, Jeff Jarvis heard some interesting news about the state of political advertising on television and online. At a panel on which he appeared, a "political media man" said that while he was used to spending 80 percent of his money on TV, he was now spending 60 percent online. And at the same session, Joe Trippi "said that the Hillary Clinton 1984 commercial was viewed 4 million times on YouTube but probably 50-60 million times with broadcast included. A message that clicks can be made for nothing and seen by the nation."

The Web on the Candidates

It looks like YouTube's new "Spotlight" feature and it's first entry, a video from Mitt Romney, are hits. Some bloggers were underwhelmed by Romney's question ("what do you believe is America's single greatest challenge, and what would you do to address it?"). After viewing Romney's video, Steve Bryant at NewTeeVee wrote, "Wow, color me disenchanted already, Mitt. You’ve somehow managed to take the most interactive platform in the world and simply repeat bland politico-speak." Another viewer commented, "The questions for these political YouTube videos need to be more specific. General topics leave no room for addressing specific problems in a specific way." Nevertheless, the video has garnered over 110,000 thousand views, 573 text comments, and 27 video comments. Sarah Wheaton at the Caucus has a roundup of some of the comments, from both supporters and detractors. People are certainly responding to this direct approach, so chalk up one for YouTube and Romney. Looking forward to next week and a spotlight on a new candidate.

Tom McCormick at the Bivings Report takes a second look at John Edwards' subtly updated web site and sees a marked improvement, though there's still room for snarky opinion. "In the main site what was once a duotone wall of healthcare opinions and stats is now a vibrant interface that is only mildly annoying." He offers up "before" and "after" images that show some improvements in the site, though his consistent to Edwards' appearance ("Tan, rested and tan!") is somewhat unfair. In the end, he likes the site: "Overall the redesign of the site, mild though it is, really works in my opinion and the site is now on par with the better presidential campaign sites."