Last week Senator Barak Obama asked You Tube viewers to create videos of how they can make this country better and to tell him what they are passionate about http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk3hpVt8Nfk and they told him it’s….HIM! Coincidentally, as Senator Obama was making a plea to the You Tube community for their video stories, the screen name barleypolitical posted their passionate plea to the same community with the new You Tube sensation "I Got a Crush...On Obama" by Obama Girl http://youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU.
Over the last 5 days “Obama Girl” has had over 1Million views and over 3500 comments on YouTube.com not even taking into account the air time on national news and satire shows, articles, analysis and the blog wildfire this has created! The power of barleypolitical’s unsolicited content has demonstrated an important Internet reality for modern day presidential campaigns. With new technology comes new dangers and candidates are realizing that the Internet has become both an asset and a liability.
Asset
This sensation undeniably demonstrates Senator Obama’s strength with first time voters and the MTV demographic of college campuses and young working America. His relationship with these voters actually started with the student community courting him, then him courting them and now them “courting” him quite literally. In 2006, “Students for Barak Obama” started a grassroots effort to recruit the Senator to run for President in 2008 by using Facebook to connect with other students and to spread the word about this new guy from Chicago. Once the Senator kicked off his campaign he was able to immediately turn to their energy and proactively tapped into these students to organize them for campaigning door to door, volunteering at phone banks and registering people to vote. On his website www.BarakObama.com the Senator hosts an area dedicated to students, their issues and a place to blog with other students supporting or just checking out what the Senator has to offer.
It may have started with that once small Facebook community but the Senator’s team realized how to continue to speak to such a community for which his message resounds so loudly. On the Senator’s website there are links to Facebook, You Tube, MySpace, PartyBuilder, Eventful and Flickr. His team’s instinct to use the Internet and the savvy approach to their own content has become a structure on which other candidates are competing.
Liability
“Obama Girl” also represents something larger that will impact all the candidates. The most important brick in the foundation of any political campaign is your message. You must be consistent and in control of your message at all times. On the Internet you can control whatever content you put out there but you cannot control the content of others. That’s when the “Obama Girl” phenomenon gets dangerous. Now, did last week’s debut of the song and video hurt Obama? No, I don’t think so. In fact, among that demographic of 18-34 it probably helped. But what about the next video and the next? Over the weekend those that made “Obama Girl” previewed (or should I say warned) that this wasn’t their last video for Obama nor will Obama be their only subject (or will that be “target”). Which ignites a conversation that so far has just been smoldering of how a politician deals with the Internet as part of their political strategy.
Result
Campaigns are beginning to understand the Internet's liability when it comes to Presidential politics - it's not just what you the candidate says that could appear (aka Former Senator George Allen’s “macacca moment”) but what others are saying or in this case singing that could sink your campaign. Realizing this, many of the campaigns have recently beefed up on their Internet teams. These new staffers are not providing technical support but rather watchful eyes that can scan the blogs, You Tube, MySpace and others for what just might be coming down the pike so that they can decide ahead of time - even if by only a few hours or minutes - if it’s something they’re going to want to link to their website or go into damage control mode and create as much digital distance as possible.
So what happens when each one of us holds a key to content? Here at Gather, we all hold the keys to our own content and by logging into Gather we unlock the keys to others. The Internet for our community here at Gather provokes us to think, it informs, it makes us laugh and sometimes cry because content equals emotion.
This is an interesting dilemma and it’s only the beginning that’s why I want to ask you:
Is this Brave New Political World an Asset or Liability?
I'm looking forward to seeing what you think!
Thank you,
Laura
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 26
With regards to this article, I may be a purist, but I think this Brave New Political World is an asset. Anytime there are additional ways to communicate, I feel it has to be a positive.
Having said that, we as a society may want to consider what we can put out there. The reaction of "free speech" is not a good one, since the airwaves (such as Fox) are prohibited by law from showing/broadcasting anything. Do we need the equivalent of an FCC? That's grist for another discussion.
I've got to get back to work -- have some major polling work in the near future.
Having said all this, the internet is a powerful tool that not only can influence presidential campaigns, but potentially topple authoritarian rulers who otherwise try to control the media. Yes, they can even control the internet (think China), but it's getting harder to keep the free flow of ideas (good and bad) from criss-crossing the world.
the mode of deliverance might be different but the motives are not.
Nor will the effect s of it be any more overwhelming if people dont follow through and vote.
I feel these candidates we are starting to see...need to get back to the causes' at hand make a stand and quit fishing for votes and earn them.
I am so tired of political rhetoric I could puke.
I think Obama is someone I keep looking at.waiting for him to do something that will tell me I see something happening....maybe I am looking to him to not worry about the win, necessarily, but the fan on the fire that is telling me that my childrens generation are looking to their own futures.
It will be interesting t o see just what the next four years will produce, but as for the following four years....well, thats what I would be aiming for.
It just amazes me that anyone's aim in any,election should be damage control.
What a world we have created for ourselves.Just my very humble, little opinion.
Fact or fiction – when it's written word it's out there for all to see. You make a very valid point regarding fact checking. Who bears this responsibility? The onus of fact checking definitely lies with the subject of the article or blog rather than the writer and source themselves. That's why there is so much that goes into opposition research of a campaign and I'm not talking opponents – I'm talking their own candidate. Whether dirty laundry, an affair, employing an illegal, prior drug use or a drunken night that might come back to haunt the candidate – their operation needs to know about it before someone writes about it. Just look at Newt Gingrich for example. He admitted earlier this year to having an improper relationship with his current wife while still married to his last wife. But he came out and broke that story himself, announced he turned to God (which most celebrities and politicians do these days) and the public was more likely to forgive and forget. That's a smart move strategically – know the most about your own campaign so you can be ready to discern what's true on line vs. what's not and address it either way effectively and fast!
Thanks for being a part of the conversation David,
Laura
Thanks, Laura
You make a really good point – aside from "Obama Girl" which like I commented earlier – I do not think it hurts Senator Obama but the medium has an open potential to hurt anyone in the future - sabotaging, name calling and stereotyping of candidates for an opponent's gain has been going on for ages but like you said, the delivery has just changed. Instead of one reporter going with a leak out of a campaign and writing an article, printing it the next day when other reporters catch on to it and do their stories as you keep yours going….and so on and so on – it's just so immediate that the candidates have now counted it into their strategies. But maybe less time on damage control and more time on causes like you said would show all the candidates in a better light.
I believe there is a fine line between political rhetoric and everyday reality and although the 24hr demand of cable news may focus on the rhetoric – our candidates on both sides of the aisle have to focus on everyday reality and speak to us about how they are going to change it for the better – that wins votes, rhetoric doesn't.
Thanks again for your comment!
Laura
First of all, great screen name and secondly – thank you for taking part in this group.
Dr. Ron Paul is a great example as to how the Internet will be a huge positive to get out his message. Even when the cable and national news networks and papers may not give him a bunch of air time or coverage – the Internet is his to use and fill with information about his candidacy and to get people involved. I have to say (and I did in my review of the Republican's debate in New Hampshire) he was outstanding at the WMUR debate – he received applause for basically every time he was asked a question and keeps a solid position on the issues. I think Dr. Paul will also benefit from how MSNBC has decided to embed their reporters with the campaigns. MSNBC is not only using broadcast journalists but also news magazine journalists to travel with and blog about all the candidates – not just the top tiers but all tiers (I don't even like the connotation of the word tiers – it's like we're back in high school in a "click" or something).
When you don't have as much coverage coming your way or money as everyone else you've got to get creative. Something that the political director in the first Clinton campaign in '92 did was to get all of his field directors on local TV as much as possible. The local affiliates were always looking for folks from the campaigns to talk on camera but many campaigns instinctively keep tight lip on everyone but the press secretary and candidate to control message and strictly determine who can be on camera and who could not. Well, the Clinton political director knew that his field staff knew the message and their shear dedication to then Governor Clinton would show and it was that passion that mattered – and it did. They were on the stations whenever possible talking about new policies, events and ideas. They used local affiliates like the candidates today are also able to use the Internet and have folks within the different campaign departments blogging and sharing everyday!
Thanks for joining in and you have beautiful images on your Gather page!
Laura
This is the first time in history in which a major medium is not controlled by some person, group, board or organization. It is pretty much controlled by the people! Can you imagine the effect it might have had two hundred years ago if the newspapers were controlled by the people instead of their owners? The people tend to act as a loose cannon and can have an effect which is clearly unintended, even by those causing it!
Is it an improvement? I can't say but I like to think it is basically good! Like Greg, I think that more ways to communicate have to be good! But I'm well aware that it can be tricky and elusive when one thinks he understands it!
Whatever else, it's going to be fun to watch!
It is both, of course. Radio and TV were look down by the elite when they first came out. Only for the unwashed, the average, the workers.
Now it is the media, newspapers, radio, etc all saying the internet has very little power. That is is only for kids and people with very short attention spans. but it is great media for checking facts, learning about politicians that the regular media gives short thrift to. (as you know with Congressman Ron Paul.)
Thanks to the internet, everyone has the power to spread his news, ideas, and opinions to the entire world! It will become very difficult for dictators to retain power. However, as Devin warns, we must check the facts before we believe what people put on the internet.
I like Rudy
I understand you don't like a popular Democrat! But you also just disqualified Abraham Lincoln from the job! But a hitch as a city mayor does qualify one?
I'm more leery of the constant polling (taking the voters' temperature on any number of issues, and the candidates themselves). Are you asking because you'd like to know where I stand, or because you want to know where you should stand?
Total Asset in my opinion it is the way to get the pulse of the
people. Polls don't take a broad enough sampling. Now smart
candidates for national office have infiltrated these
communities and interacted with the people.
Thereby, they will know where their support is or isn't.
Take your Question for instance " Is this Brave New Political
World an Asset or Liability?" by Monday morning you will have a
great feeling for what the answer to the question is.
Communication is the key and the easy access makes this a
valuable tool for any campaign. Political or otherwise.
What part of that dont you understand, When George signed his name to war he signed all of our names and we will now pay the price as a nation and you cant avoid it...
The God almighty created Adam and Eve dont you think he can take care of Saddam
himself he could have dropped him with a heart attack if he saw fit save your money and our kids lives......George you idiot
The internet wont make any differance untill people find their faith again and vote in that direction. Americans must find God again as a nation then it will make a differance in Washington. When we as a nation make this change God will bring us the good candidates but untill then good luck internet or no internet.
Paul Caronna Jr