In Round One, the public submitted the questions they’d like to see the candidates answer, and then voted for their favorites. During this period, which ended on Nov. 17th, the site received more than 121,000 votes on 231 videos. The top ten videos ended up being substantive and thoughtful questions, with nary a talking snowman in sight.
In Round Two, Barack Obama, Mike Huckabee, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich all responded to the top ten videos on the site. In addition, we worked with MySpace and MTV to have Obama answer the top question, about Net neutrality, during his appearance in their joint Presidential Dialogues series. We think the participation of two of three Democratic frontrunners and one Republican frontrunner, and the lack of snowman-type joke questions to respond to, legitimized for once and for all a format in which the public decides which questions to ask the candidates.
With 1,938 net votes, the Obama response about Net neutrality garnered the most net votes in Round Two. John Edwards’ responses to that question and the number two question, about whether America is a theocracy, were the second and third most-popular responses. Mike Huckabee was actually the first candidate to post his responses, and his answer to the theocracy question was the fourth most-popular candidate answer.
You can see the rest of the results here. We should note that John Edwards captured six of the top ten favorite responses, making his responses the most popular in Round Two; according to these ratings, he answered the questions more reliably than the other candidates.
Edwards and Huckabee benefited from participating early; Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich got their videos in just before the deadline, so the public didn’t have much time to weigh in on whether they actually answered the questions. That said, four of Kucinich’s responses landed in the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th spots. Gravel didn’t far as well, only managing to land one response in the 20 highest-rated responses.
The site remained popular throughout its run, with a total of almost 150,000 unique visits.
We view 10Questions as a precedent-setting success and a legitimate, people-powered alternative to the status quo.
]]>11. Clinton Adopts Southern Accent
Hillary doesn't only sing, she adopts regional accents!
10. Congressman Ron Paul Visits My Dorm Room
Budding videoblogging superstar James Kotecki interviewed Ron Paul in his dorm room, and Kotecki's career -- and indeed, the world! -- was never the same.
9. Gov. Mitt Romney meets a medical marijuana patient--Oct. 6
Mitt Romney is confronted by a medical marijuana proponent and user. He listens for a moment before doing that polite-robot-ignore thing he's perfected.
8. Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran
John McCain simultaneously tries his hand at singing a Beach Boys song, being funny, and making a political point. Some might argue that he fails all three.
7. Huckabee’s message to Iowa (parody)
A spin on Huck’s good-natured demeanor.
6. TPMtv: I’m Rudy Giuliani and I Approve This Message
Continues to breathe new life into Joe Biden’s “a noun, a verb, and 9/11” joke, even if his campaign is on its last legs.
5. Barack Obollywood
The catchiest political mashup of the year.
4. Gender Bender (Bush satire)
The creepiest political mashup of the year.
3. 23/6 SwiftKids: Hillary’s Cookies
I don’t know how Hillary is still going after barely withstanding this blistering attack.
2. Bullshit is most important issue
The Onion says it so we don’t have to.
1. Vote Different
The video that started it all has been viewed almost 4,000,000 times.
My money’s on the latter. That’s why we’ve produced our own year-end list of our favorite political videos of the year. We'll be posting two lists, one of videos by the candidates, and the other of voter-generated videos.
First up: the candidates.
]]>My money’s on the latter. That’s why we’ve produced our own year-end list of our favorite political videos of the year. We'll be posting two lists, one of videos by the candidates, and the other of voter-generated videos.
First up: the candidates.
10. Mike Gravel: Power to the People
Mike Gravel quotes John Lennon and himself, sing-rapping with the aid of some duct tape and an American flag.
9. Mike Gravel: Rock (not full)
A cult classic for the ages. We still have no idea what it means.
8. Senator Dodd versus Bill O’Reilly
Chris Dodd sticks it to Bill O’Reilly, besting him at his own game.
7. Bill Richardson’s New Ads: Job Interview and Tell Me
One of the best political ads of the year. Smart, funny, informative. Unfortunately it didn’t do much to actually get him the job.
6. HuckChuckFacts
Chuck Norris and Mike Huckabee collaborate on a huge career-boosting video (for both of them) that has been viewed almost 2.5 million times on YouTube.
5. John Edwards - Hair
Edwards turns the tables and zooms right in on what, for his campaign, really matters.
4. The Politics of Parsing (Edwards)
Exploiting a weak moment for Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the Edwards team produced a biting and funny video repeating nudging her weak spot.
3. Caucusing Is Easy (Clinton)
Featuring a hamburger, Bill Clinton, and Hillary singing the national anthem. Oh yeah, it describes the Iowa caucus process too.
2. Hillary Clinton Sopranos Parody
The candidate-produced viral video of the year.
1. Students for Barack Obama
A powerful (and long) video about the power of students to foster social and political change, framing Barack Obama as the standard-bearer for past and present youth movements. A great piece of campaign propaganda.
Our panel judged Ron Paul and Barack Obama to have the best overall web presences, and they also led their respective fields in the most individual categories. Mike Huckabee and John Edwards followed, with each earning strong support from our panel. But while these four campaigns were the leaders, there were many surprises in specific categories. For example, Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney scored the most points for their online rapid response work. Why would that be? Go here for more.
Enough with the talk. On with with the list!
Question 1: Which campaign has made the best use of online video?
Question 2: Which campaign has made the best use of email?
Question 3: Which campaign has made the best use of online social networking?
Question 4: Which campaign has made the best use of its blog?
Question 5: Which campaign has done the best work engaging online political activists?
Question 7: Which campaign is doing the best work spending money on online advertising?
Question 8: Which campaign is making the best use of mobile technology?
Question 9: Which campaign is doing the best work raising money using online tools?
Question 11: Which campaign has done the best "rapid response" work online?
Question 12: Which campaign has made the best use of the web to decentralize power?
Question 13: Which campaign has the best overall web presence?
Question 1: Which campaign has made the best use of online video?
According to our panel, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have been producing the strongest online video, though with a respective six and five votes, they hardly swept the field. Hillary Clinton garnered four votes, and John Edwards and Mike Huckabee each received three.
Some panelists were impressed by Obama’s tactic of highlighting videos by his supporters, or by featuring them in his own. “Barack has been smart to use video to tell stories about his supporters and show the lucky supporters actually having dinner with Barack. I feel like I could have a beer with Barack (if I work hard enough for the campaign),” says one panelist. Ari Melber agrees, saying that “BarackTV offers a great array of videos, from short tidbits for supporters to substantive addresses for voters seeking more information about the candidate.”
Romney won accolades for his contest inviting supporters to create official campaigns ads. “Of all the Republicans, Mitt Romney has dipped is toes in the 2.0 water more than his opponents. Romney’s video contest on JumpCut wasn’t fantastic, but he gave his supporters a voice,” said Michael Whitney.
Mike Huckabee and Hillary Clinton were praised for producing funny, offbeat videos that went viral and helped shape their images. Zephyr Teachout liked Huckabee’s willingness to let his supporters to do the talking. “Huckabee’s site features funny, irreverent and smart user-created videos several times a week, which then encourages other supporters to create video. This not only gives people power, which is a good thing and creates more serious civic involvement, but gives them power in a medium which tends to be completely and jealously owned by candidates: video.” About Huckabee’s own videos, Micah Sifry wrote that “Huckabee just comes across well, the intimacy of the web is perfect for him.”
One panelist actually thought that “while almost everyone else has to define themselves, Hillary has used video to redefine herself as funny (Soprano take off) and family person (Chelsea and Mom video).”
Question 2: Which campaign has made the best use of email?
Our panel tilted strongly toward Paul and Huckabee on the Republican side, and Obama and Dodd on the Democratic side, with McCain, Clinton and Biden all getting at least one vote. But hardly anyone was enthusiastic about how the campaigns were using email. Zephyr Teachout said, "Emails this campaign season have largely been disappointments....used just for list growth, not for comparing candidates, sharing policy positions, or sharing the records of the candidates. Patrick Ruffini agreed, saying, "To paraphrase [RedState's] Erick Erickson, they all suck." He went on to praise Huckabee for having interesting things to say and signing his own emails, and Clinton for effectively tapping her celebrity. Our email guru Michael Whitney also praised Huckabee for being "consistent, timely and unobtrusive," while he cited Obama for being "respective of his lists, [having] the most genuine voice and consistent messaging." Dodd won points with Josh Levy for setting the standard "for informal, personal-seeming emails that were different from the others in both form and function." And as we all know, those emails worked--they got people's attention and other campaigns started copying Dodd's innovation. As for Paul, Teachout said, his supporters "successfully created a massive email-driven network, which included some content, and proved--in a way in which we all benefit--that candidates can raise enough money to compete on message alone, without a scintilla of mainstream media support. Whether or not you agree with Ron Paul, this is a good thing for democracy."
Question 3: Which campaign has made the best use of online social networking?
Barack Obama and Ron Paul were the overwhelming winners here. As Ari Melber puts it, “Obama obviously became ‘the brand’ on Facebook,” and Josh Levy agrees, saying that “despite the unfortunate incident between the Obama campaign an Joe Anthony, who created their original MySpace page, Obama has continued to cultivate friends online and to stay cool with hip young Obama fans.”
Given his enormous fundraising success, it’s not surprising that Ron Paul was judged the Republican social networking king. Michael Whitney says simply, “Ron Paul owns the Republicans on social networking - practically half of Digg is Ron Paul stories.”
Not all panelists went with the super social networking duo. Patrick Ruffini selected Rudy Giuliani, arguing that “after a slow start, or non-start… They have the best Facebook application and made the LinkedIn jump.” And Liza Sabater reminds us that “Ron Paul is everywhere but John Edwards started being everywhere MORE THAN A YEAR AGO. That takes more than commitment, it takes a real keen strategic vision of how this ever-growing new platform of the web can serve as a broadcasting network for people who don’t have the bucks of a Murdoch.”
Question 4: Which campaign has made the best use of its blog?
Our panel split its votes between Edwards and Obama on the Democratic side (with Edwards winning by a nose), and Huckabee leading Romney and Thompson on the Republican side. Dodd did get one mention. If you've been reading techPresident, you already know why Huckabee is winning this category. As Patrick Ruffini put it, he "has made his community come alive through his blog by given them frequent action items and ways to interact and get involved." Zephyr Teachout said, "Huckabee's blog is hands down the most fun. You can tell its only edited after the fact, whereas the majority of sites have a 'Stepford site' feel about them, where you can be sure that the blog content is edited beforehand, or so controlled and limited in terms of language that it sounds prescribed." Thompson also won kudus for initially writing his own posts and even starting to lay out his policy framework by blogging. The high personal "Five Brothers" approach is what earned plaudits for Romney. As for the Democrats, Josh Levy praised Obama blogger Sam Graham-Felsen for attentively "following Obama from state to state, posting profiles of supporters, and regurgitating press releases. That last part has, unfortunately, become part and parcel of campaign blogging. But Obama's team does it better than his competitors." Longtime blogger Liza Sabater gave the edge to Edwards: "... because he started way before everybody else. Not just a blog but a whole online community. That takes a vision of where and how the candidate wants to be in the public eye no matter what the outcome of the elections." In the end, Edwards's community blogging platform was seen by the majority of our panel as promoting the most content from supporters. As Michael Whitney put it,"More than any other candidate, Edwards emphasizes what his supporters have to say."
Question 5: Which campaign has done the best work engaging online political activists?
When asked about the somewhat ineffable metric of “engaging online political activists,” respondents almost uniformly thought of Ron Paul for the Republicans, and the majority selected John Edwards on the Democratic side. “Is it even close on the GOP side?,” asks Patrick Ruffini. “Ron Paul has engaged tens of thousands of new online political activists, so he takes this one,” says Michael Whitney. Ari Melber pointed out that for Paul it’s not really about strategy. “In an interview he emphasized that they didn’t plan a national ‘strategy; to tap these people, they simply welcomed their ideas when they showed up.” The voters seem to respond to straight-shooting. “People respond to candidates who are candid and sincere. Paul says what he thinks, not what his pollster tells him to say, and his folks have reacted to that,” one voter said.
For Edwards, online outreach has been essential to his campaign. “I think Edwards would be dead right now—would have been dead long ago—were it not for the blogger outreach from the beginning,” Zephyr Teachout said. Part of his strategy has been access, especially to his wife Elizabeth. “The Edwards campaign has invested heavily in cultivating online activists, giving access to the candidate and his wife unlike any other campaign,” one panelist argued. Jeff Commaroto agreed that “Elizabeth Edwards probably scores the most credit.”
Chris Dodd has flown beneath most voters’ (and panelists’) radar, but two people fingered him has conducting the best outreach to bloggers. Despite failing to rise in the polls, he has been “consistently drawing bloggers and other online activists into the work he’s doing in the Senate on game-changing stuff like habeas corpus and telecom immunity,” Nancy Scola said.
Question 6: Which campaign has made the best and most innovative use of "Web 2.0" techniques like RSS, widgets and tagging?
In general, our panel saw more innovation on the Democratic side than the Republican side. On the Republican side Paul was the clear winner, with Romney second and Giuliani earning one mention. The vote on the Democratic side split evenly between Edwards, Obama and Dodd, with Clinton and Gravel each earning one mention apiece. Clearly, the Republican field has done less to use the web as a platform than the Democrats--with one obvious exception. Josh Levy praised that exception, Ron Paul, for releasing his donor information in real time: "It enabled supporters to create dozens of graphs showing fundraising information, which in turn rallied other supporters to the cause." Romney earned kudos for his successful experiment with user-generated ads. Edwards was credited by several on our panel for basically trying every tool under the sun, though one person said the result was a "Web 2.0 mess." Michael Whitney said Obama is all over widgets - for Google, for personal sites, and a Facebook app to boot. His team understands the value in spreading content around the web." Nancy Scola praised Dodd's debate clock for its overall value to supporters of every campaign who wanted to judge how their candidate was being treated in debates, as well as for being the only candidate to submit a video question to the other side's YouTube debate. Michael Whitney noted, "Dodd has been out early and often with new techniques, like live streaming of events. His campaign is not afraid to test the water at all."
Question 7: Which campaign is doing the best work spending money on online advertising?
Of those who pay close attention to this more obscure aspect of online campaigns, Barack Obama and John McCain won the most votes for their online advertising operations.
Barack Obama’s “banner and text ads are very creative - instead of just engaging on the race, issues, or other candidates, they focus on Barack. ‘Meet Barack Obama!’ ‘See Barack in Person!’ They know what they’re doing,” Michael Whitney said. Patrick Ruffini agrees about Obama’s adverising strategy, noting that “Obama did some very impressive PointRoll ads targeted at NH.”
For Jeff Commorato, it comes down to money spent. “[John] McCain is hands down a big spender and his ads are always well produced even though their placement on the Web needs better control,” he said. But one panelist said it’s money well spent. “John McCain’s team has made a very smart us of Google AdWords and has even publicly noted that they’re getting a 4-1 ROI.”
But most candidates simply don’t seem to utilizing advertising much as they did in previous cycles. “Nobody has, for instance, used advertising to play up a debate appearance the way Kerry did in 2004,” said one panelist. The same might be said for the Democrats.
Question 8: Which campaign is making the best use of mobile technology?
Our panel had little to say about this question, a sign of how Big Telecom continues to stifle and stunt innovation in the mobile marketplace. Obama and Edwards were the only two candidates whose use of text messaging and short codes earned them any points from our experts. Michael Whitney noted, In addition to ringtones and wallpapers available on his website, Barack twitters pretty consistently. John Edwards is a very close second here." Josh Levy gave the edge to Edwards, noting "he has been consistent with sending updates about appearances and mentioning his short code in speeches, including when he announced his candidacy in New Orleans." As for the GOPers, "No major Republican has rolled out a mobile program that I know," said Patrick Ruffini.
Question 9: Which campaign is doing the best work raising money using online tools?
Barack Obama and Ron Paul are on top when comes to online fundraising.
Most panelists chose Paul because of his radically decentralized approach. Nancy Scola praises him “for getting out of the way and letting his supporters run wild with their online fundraising efforts.” One panelist isn’t as concerned with actual money raised as he is with the strategy used to bring it in. “I give Paul the win based on the amount of data he has made available and the transparency his campaign has been willing to grant. Not only can you see how much he has raised, you can literally watch it as it comes in. Nobody else even comes close,” the panelist said.
The same voter applauds “Barack’s use of fundraising to capitalize on key moments, together with his use of the tools available (e-mail format, video, etc) to enhance the ask.” Many panelists agree that Obama’s success at tapping his many online supporters for small donations contributed to his large fundraising haul.
But one vote went to John Edwards, who “really tapped into the ActBlue crowd —the campaign has worked hard to get the endorsement of the netroots,” as Liza Sabater points out.
Patrick Ruffini voted for Mike Huckabee. “If you mean which candidate is doing the best work leveraging their site to raise money, I would say Huckabee over Paul only because Paul’s energy is on the outside.”
Question 10: Which campaign has done the best job of informing voters about their candidate's position on the issues?
The only campaign that really rose above the pack on this important metric was that of John Edwards. Paul, Thompson, McCain and Richardson each garnered a handful of votes, but they were all behind Edwards in terms of sharing detailed issue information with voters. "Can we really say any of them are doing a good on this front?" asked Patrick Ruffini. With equal skepticism, Michael Whitney noted that "Giving a response here assumes that any candidate's strategy emphasizes issues - so maybe Ron Paul, but no major candidate should be lauded for its attention to issues." A little less cynically, Nancy Scola commented, "Even those of us not overly engaged in the '08 race know that Ron Paul wants to do away with the Federal Reserve, that John Edwards is focused on fighting poverty and rebuilding New Orleans, and that Chris Dodd is working to protect habeas corpus. Those campaigns have used the web to define their candidates, while some of the other campaigns seem happy to use the Internet to deflect attention away from where they guy or gal stands and towards their online fan base." Fred Thompson and Dennis Kucinich each earned a star for the depth of their policy papers on their sites, while Bill Richardson got credit for using the net to very effectively differentiate his positions on education and Iraq, and likewise Dodd earned kudos for how has used the net to highlight his support for restoring Constitutional protections during some current Senate battles.
Question 11: Which campaign has done the best "rapid response" work online?
Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney were on top here, in what were perhaps the most telling results in our survey. Both candidates — especially Clinton — are known for their top-down campaign styles, so it makes sense that a desire to control the message would translate to well-honed rapid response machines.
Perhaps Patrick Ruffini put it best: “Romney’s team is all over the debates, posting updates in real time, and their 500+ YouTube videos are mostly TV appearances that push their message. They are relentless. Clinton’s ‘Fact Hub’ and ‘Hillary Hub’ are pretty innovative developments that show a focus on busting myths before they get out of control.
Michael Whitney praised Chris Dodd’s campaign, saying that “engages bloggers like no other campaign. Dodd is always out with statements and leading a lot of the online organizing around actual issues. No other candidate comes close.
But Zephyr Teachout isn’t convinced that any candidate is conducting rapid response as well as past campaigns. “Correct me if I’m wrong, but none of them have developed the level of sophistication developed by the ‘Rapid Response Network’ created by Dean supporters, or the Kerry version (managed by Amanda Michel),” she said.
Q12: Which campaign has made the best use of the web to decentralize power?
The only question to yield a unanimous response from our panelists. Every panelist chose Ron Paul for the Republicans, calling the choice “obvious” and saying that his actions speaking for themselves. One panelist goes so far as to call Paul “the Howard Dean of 2008.”
On the Democratic side, Barack Obama and John Edwards were tied with four votes each.
Most panelists didn’t have a vote for any Democrat, but Ari Melber did vote for Chris Dodd, for having “gone into the weeds with the citizen whip count and other efforts to give people the tools, information and ability to directly influence legislation — with him backing up the effort,” and one vote went to Mike Gravel.
Question 13: Which campaign has the best overall web presence?
When push came to shove (and we pushed), our panel came to a clear consensus around both Ron Paul and Barack Obama having the best overall web presences of their fields. But Huckabee, Edwards, Clinton and Romney all earned some minority support from our judges. For example, while Patrick Ruffini gave his vote to Team Obama for having the most innovative effort overall, he noted that "Team Hillary's meticulousness and focus on 1) giving access to their celebrity candidate, and 2) pushing back against attacks, should serve them well in a general election." Jeff Commaroto also noted that Clinton's team doesn't get enough credit for the quietly effective work they do talking to bloggers and integrating mainstream media with new media. Michael Whitney offered that "Huckabee's campaign is the best overall, for making good use out of a number of tools. Ron Paul has the best candidate presence, but that is not the doing of his campaign." As for the Democrats, Whitney said, "I really want to say Chris Dodd has the best web campaign, but I can't say he has the best web presence. By sheer size Obama has the best web presence, because he has a large staff of extremely talented people. But Dodd's smaller team is the most creative." Liza Sabater explained her vote for Edwards by arguing, "I can actually see JohnEdwards.com still thriving after he is elected (or not)." As for Paul, one person commented, "Ron Paul's Revolution is very real and his supporters never stop. Good or bad, the presence is felt by all." And another added, "Obama's campaign understands that the campaign needs to drive the train if it plans to reach its goal. Paul's campaign seems much more like Dean's in that they seem more caught up in their success than in their strategy. They're letting the people drive the train, and as Dean learned, that can be dangerous."
]]>We’re glad that his campaign team took the time to participate in 10Questions. Unfortunately, the Obama team was unable to record his answers to the top questions, so they hunted down videos of Obama’s statements from speeches and the campaign trail. For example, Obama’s response to question #7, about government transparency, comes from a speech at Google.
In addition to Obama’s answer to the net neutrality question, which he gave during his MTV/MySpace event, the campaign provided six additional videos. They did not provide answers to the questions about corporate personhood, reducing the size of government, or the two party system.
While we would have been much happier had Obama specifically responded to each video, we are glad to have an official set of responses from his campaign before tonight’s deadline.
]]>Ron Paul's campaign, which was one of the first to agree to participate, says it is working hard to add his responses by the extended deadline. We hope to see Dr. Paul's responses on the site soon.
We realize that all the presidential campaigns are faced with enormous demands on their candidate's time. That's why we designed the 10Questions forum to make optimal use of the Internet's time-shifting and time-expanding powers. Unlike other presidential forums, 10Questions does not require a candidate to appear at a specific time and place. Nor does it limit the length or creativity of candidate answers.
To sum up, we're looking forward to all the candidates taking advantage of this opportunity to answer directly and in-depth the questions asked by the tens of thousands of people who participated in the first round of 10Questions, and we look forward to your feedback.
]]>As with the Democrats, we've approached this review mainly by looking through the candidates' policy statements on technology, the media, education, transparency and infrastructure. We're primarily interested in seeing what issues they choose to highlight on their websites and in their speeches and press releases, as those are good indicators of their priorities. But if we only relied on those sources, we'd have to flunk every Republican running, as there's notably little on their official sites that touches on most of those topics. So we've hunted elsewhere, and want to give credit to two sites, OnTheIssues and National Journal, for performing yeoman's service in scraping together the crumbs into something of a useful picture. Here's what we've found.
Who knew Rudy Giuliani was such a data nerd? While he touts his "12 Commitments" as the core of his policy program and you can find platform statements on everything from school choice to fiscal discipline to the "Terrorists' War on Us", there's thin pickings when it comes to figuring out his thinking about the role of the internet and technology in America's future--except for his fixation on statistics. Apparently, he does think everything can be handled the way his police commissioner zeroed in on high-crime neighborhoods, with a program called CompStat. Just call him Stat-man. In his autobiography, Leadership, he writes that he tried to "run the city as a business, using business principles to impose accountability on government. Objective, measurable indicators of success allow governments to be accountable, and I relentlessly pursued that idea." Thus, on his website, he proposes creating a "Government-wide Accountability Program ['GAPStat'] based on New York's CompStat program to better evaluate each agency, analyze the effectiveness of Federal programs, and identify those that are wasteful, failing or duplicative." But there's no indication that this tool would allow for citizen input or oversight. Likewise, he proposes the creation of "ReadyStat" to "measure what prevention and response capabilities are needed by American localities" and thus reduce disaster response time. And he calls for a "TerrorStat" to "provide an easily accessible depository for terrorism data, including reports of suspicious activity, precursor crimes and expanded Syndromic Surveillance to identify pandemic and biochemical attacks as soon as possible." He's also calling for a BorderStat, an EnergyStat, ...and of all these wondrous Stats, only when it comes to energy indicators does Giuliani promise to put the data online "so the public can track our progress and hold government accountable." So much for the potential of new technology to involve ordinary citizens in making government work; Giuliani's vision is all about top-down control. Back in 1999, when he was gearing up to run for the Senate, his RudyYes website touted his administration's work putting computers in city classrooms, but the fact is that children in New York City schools had very little meaningful internet access then (and now). His campaign site today makes no mention of net neutrality, the digital divide, a connected democracy, or even a national net guard. We give him a D.
As best as we can tell, John McCain mainly views the internet as a threat to children. That's because we couldn't find any mention of the net, net neutrality, the digital divide, or any other web buzzword on the issue sections of his website or in his speeches, other than in a platform page on "human dignity and the sanctity of life," where he touts his efforts to push legislation requiring "all schools and libraries receiving federal subsidies for Internet connectivity to utilize technology to restrict access to sexually explicit material by children using such computers." On that same page, he pays lip service to the "tremendous promise in terms of freedom of expression, information sharing, and the spread of knowledge and commerce" that the internet offers, but develops that idea nowhere else on his site or his public statements. Yes, McCain calls for "increasing transparency" in government, but only insofar as hidden spending like earmarks affects the budget process, it appears. So while he wants members of Congress who request earmarks to be identified, he is silent about other ways to open up the process. (Compare this to his activism in 1999, when he released a report on the "Ten Most Wanted" government documents online, to goad various agencies into doing more. “It is critical to make as much information as possible available to the public over the Internet," he said then.) He defends his long-standing advocacy for campaign finance reform, but it appears that his thinking on that topic hasn't been affected one iota by the rise of the internet, as he has nothing to say about its role in leveling the playing field or in helping root out political corruption. In his interview with Michael Arrington of TechCrunch, he equivocates about net neutrality, claiming that he doesn't see anti-competitive behavior by big telecom companies. He also told attendees at the Wall Street Journal's D conference that "When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment." As for protecting our communications infrastructure, he called for a "comprehensive, interoperable emergency communications plan and ...equipment standards [and] fund[ing] for emergency and interoperable communications equipment" at a firefighters' forum last March. At least he seems aware of the problem. We're giving him a C+.
Give Mitt Romney some credit: his website's issue section puts "technology" in its own category. Alas, it's for a two paragraph statement voicing support for "substantial" government investments in "technologies related to power generation, nanotechnology, and materials science." (Who knew Romney was such a fan of government investing in anything?) However, there's no mention of information technology investments, whatsoever. And that's it for what you can glean from his website. Nor did we learn anything about Romney's views of net neutrality or the digital divide from his interview with Michael Arrington, as they ran out of time before engaging those issues. Does he get transparency, at least? A spokesman told National Journal's Technology Daily that as governor of Massachusetts, Romney "consistently used technology and innovation to make government more transparent and accessible," for example, ending the practice of printing the budget and instead putting it online. In his book Turnaround, he describes how the Salt Lake Olympics Committee that he ran adopted an open documents policy in response to the Olympics bid scandal. He writes: "It is fair to say that SLOC was the most transparent organizing committee in Olympic history--perhaps among the most publicly accessible organizations in America. The public were in attendance at every Board meeting. We built a reading room at our own expense where the public could come to examine core documents. For all intents and purposes, we were naked." But would he do the same for the federal government? Impossible to say, because he hasn't addressed it. Our friends at PrezVid also spotted a YouTube video where he declares that he wants to "make sure every new computer sold in this country has a filter to block all pornography." Sigh. We'd flunk him, but at least he's in favor of investing in emerging technologies. D+
Looking for technology policy from Fred Thompson is kind of looking for the submarine Red October in the North Atlantic. You know there must be something there, given how much (and astutely) the former Senator has talked about using the Internet to assist his campaign. But it's buried deep...really deep. For example, on his "On the Issues" page, under "Government Effectiveness," Thompson says he is committed to "Ensuring information technology systems are secure and that they give our government the capacity and effectiveness to get the job done." This emphasis is rooted, no doubt, in his having been the lead sponsor of a data security infrastructure for the federal government, which among other things requires annual security audits by government agencies and requires regular reports of their results to the public, as Wired reported. We'll give him points for knowing something about cyber-security, then. But for the most part, Thompson comes up wanting. Under "Education," he embraces "Encouraging students and teachers to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and math—fields that are crucial to our security, competitiveness, and prosperity." His education "white paper," which is more like a cover sheet than a paper, doesn't offer any further detail on how he would achieve that goal. As for government transparency, Thompson is oddly silent, even though he led a major investigation into corrupt campaign finance practices in the 1996 election. For having done a podcast in June that talked about Phil de Vellis's Hillary 1984 mashup and the power of online video, we'll give Thompson points for paying some attention to what the net can offer (Click here and scroll down to "Democratizing the Campaign Trail" to hear it). But the lack of any consideration of broadband competitiveness or net neutrality, let alone getting kids online or protecting our communications infrastructure earns him a D+.
Scan the list of issues on Mike Huckabee's website and at first, it looks as disinterested as most of his Republican colleagues in the importance of technology and the internet to America's future. But then, at the tail end of the list is something called "vertical politics" (by which he means neither left nor right but up and forward). Here you'll discover something that suggests, perhaps, that Huckabee recognizes the web can power a new kind of engagement between voters and politicians about the issues of the day. Vertical Day was a gimmick his campaign came up with to rally interest online, but its intensive use of blogging, webcasts and videoblogging all in one day was indicative of Huckabee's somewhat more innovative use of the web overall in his campaign. That said, it's pretty hard to know where Huckabee will go with technology policy as he has nothing at all to say about it on his website. As Governor of Arkansas, he did create a website for info on state grant programs, and he claims to have "done more in technology to make our state accessible online and to do more electronic services than any other state in the country," but that hardly suggests that he has a vision for using technology to improve federal government. He's has somewhat sympathetic things to say about the need for net neutrality, both in his response to the number one question on 10Questions.com and on a blogger conference call. But even though a governor might be expected to understand more the importance of broadband to economic development, he's silent about that issue, as well as the importance of closing the digital divide. We're giving him a C, and we're being generous.
Ron Paul may be the internet candidate of 2008, but when it comes to technology policy, his libertarian ideology leaves a great deal wanting. In 2006 he voted against net neutrality legislation, arguing that it represented government regulation of the internet. A spokesman told National Journal that he didn't think the federal government had a role in promoting national broadband, saying it should be left to the market. We guess he thinks the government's investment in the interstate highway system was also interference in the market. On the other hand, at the Iowa Straw Poll debate last August, he was quick to pledge his support for greater government transparency, though without any mention of the internet's role. However, it doesn't look any of these positions are priorities for his campaign, judging by their absences from the detailed issues section of his website. (Yes, Paulites, we perused his past writings too.) He says all kinds of good things about the net, though, like "we should never interfere with the Internet" and his campaign has walked Paul's transparency talk by publishing the most detailed and up-to-date information about its own campaign contributors that anyone has ever done in a national race. Again grading generously, we'll give him a C.
Tom Tancredo voted against net neutrality. He sponsored a bill in 2003 to eviscerate the FCC's e-rate program, which gives schools and libraries discounted rates from telecom and internet service providers. In other words, he'd like the digital divide to get worse. His top priority is border security but he has nothing to say about our vulnerable communications infrastructure. Same with the issue of America's declining broadband competitiveness. We're flunking him. F.
Duncan Hunter has an in-depth issues section on his website, but the only mentions of the Internet come in a brief discussion of protecting children from obscene materials and in a short statement of opposition to online gambling. He voted against net neutrality. And he's silent on everything from government transparency to broadband competitiveness. Another F.
]]>We've spent some time looking through the candidates' policy statements on technology, the media, education, transparency and infrastructure, and here's what we've found. First, the Democrats.
John Edwards gets it. He gets the big picture, saying, "The Internet is not the answer to everything, but it can powerfully accelerate the best of America. It improves our democracy by making quiet voices loud, improves our economy by making small markets big, and improves opportunity by making unlikely dreams possible." And he's got a lot of the details right. His "open media" platform includes a call for a national broadband policy "to help make the Internet more affordable and accessible to all Americans," with the goal of giving all homes and businesses real access by 2010. His "innovation" platform notes what a joke US internet speeds are compared to Japan, and how rural dwellers and African-Americans are particularly hurt by poor net acess. He's a supporter of net neutrality, and so far he is the only candidate who has urged the FCC to also require open use of new broadcast spectrum that is currently being auctioned. His "homeland security" platform, however, only has a passing mention of the need to improve cybersecurity and nothing about creating a national tech corps to rebuild vital communications infrastructure in the event of an emergency. As for building a more connected democracy, his "government reform" platform promotes the very imaginative idea of creating a "citizen Congress" where one million Americans would meet in a giant technology-linked town hall to create a national discussion on the challenges and trade-offs facing America. He also calls on lobbyists to disclose within 24 hours their meetings with government officials and the legislative or regulatory items they discussed. These are excellent proposals, though we'd like to see more on how he would open up government agencies and Members of Congress themselves to greater transparency. One final note: while his education platform has many strong aspects, it makes no explicit mention of the need to close the digital divide (though in fairness that is covered elsewhere) or how the internet could serve as an educational resource, as a way to expand learning moments beyond the classroom, and as a tool to connect students, parents and teachers 24/7. Overall, we give him an A-.
Hillary Clinton either doesn't get it, or hasn't focused on it, yet. The main thrust of her policy proposal on technology focuses on spending more money on science and research, and getting politics out of science policy. By contrast, her position on universal broadband internet access is fairly low-key. "In order to accelerate the deployment of sophisticated networks, Hillary Clinton will provide tax incentives to encourage broadband deployment in underserved areas," her website notes at the end of a long press release on infrastructure priorities. (Her "Connect America" proposal of early October, where she endorsed the "ConnectKentucky" program as a model of improving broadband access, is buried deep in her press archive.) She also promises to invest "up to $50 million annually in state and local telecommuting initiatives." While she is a cosponsor in the Senate of legislation to require all broadband providers to treat all internet traffic equally, she has not mentioned net neutrality since becoming a candidate. Her speeches and policy statements on education make no mention of the digital divide, rural or urban. On government transparency, she did propose that all agency budgets and contracts be published online, saying this in a speech: "You can check your bank account online. Why can't you go online and see how your government is spending – or misspending – your tax dollars?" (This is already the law, under a bill written by Senators Obama and Coburn.) And she does call for posting more real-time data on the effectiveness of government programs, and on subsidies going to corporations. However, as best as we can tell, Clinton has not said anything about enhancing political transparency of government officials, or opening the process up to more citizen input. Lastly, she appears to be silent on the vital need to protect our communications infrastructure in the event of an emergency. Overall, she gets a B-.
Barack Obama not only gets it, he's put his whole technology/innovation platform into one neat package. Very helpful! In most respects, Obama differs little from Edwards in terms of understanding the power of the internet to drive innovation and educational opportunity, and like Edwards he also strongly supports net neutrality. Where he goes further is in arguing that "technology offers the tools to create real change in America," by connecting citizens to each other and by opening up the federal government to change how business is done--including "giving Americans the chance to participate in government deliberations and decision-making in ways that were not possible only a few years ago." (He calls this creating "a transparent and connected democracy"--hard to argue with that goal.) He also states a clearer case for how new communications infrastructure can help fuel economic growth, create jobs, reduce health care costs and solve the energy crisis. That said, we wish he didn't tout his own campaign's use of technology as demonstrating how he will open up governance, as we know the Obama campaign has maintained strong control over how its supporters use its web tools. But by calling for the explicit use of blogs, wikis and social networking tools "to modernize internal, cross-agency, and public communication and information sharing to improve government decision-making" and direct public commenting on the White House website before legislation is signed, Obama is clearly signaling a commitment to a much more robust e-democracy than anyone else. When it comes to education and the digital divide, Obama's platform is surprisingly less ambitious in imagining technology's potential benefits (given how broadly he sees its value elsewhere); his main concern appears to be wiring schools. As for any kind of national tech guard, Obama is also silent, though he does call for creating a new position of government chief technology officer and calls for making sure first responders have interoperable systems. Close but no cigar. We give him an A-.
Bill Richardson's understanding of tech seems on a par with his understanding of gay and lesbian sexual identity. He wants to say the right thing, but doesn't seem sure. Take his education platform: "We should use the best technology to create more flexible learning environments," he said in his speech on the topic. "We need to increase opportunities for Advanced Placement and online courses." Umm, is that it? Yes, it seems. On his list of specific challenges facing the education system, there is no mention of the digital divide. His economic platform talks about investing in technology and innovation, but again, there's no discussion of the internet or the need for affordable, universal broadband access. To be fair, his proposals to support regional innovation and "technology-based economic development" look like a kind of smart government industrial policy (without using the words "industrial policy") and venture capitalists should love his "angel investor tax credit." Yes, he supports a "free and open internet" and net neutrality (scroll down, it's at the bottom of his "civil liberties" platform). But he's silent on how the net can help make government more transparent and accountable, and silent on the need to protect our vital communications infrastructure. We give him a C-.
Chris Dodd may have the most creative internet team working on any campaign, but when it comes to tech policy there's a lot wanting. You have to hunt hard to find where he stands on the main issues. His plan for "Revitalizing Rural America," for example, includes a call for a national rural broadband initiative paid for with $2 billion in cheap loans. He also calls for a "virtual learning innovation funding" to support online courses for public schools. Yet, despite a call for "world-class" public schools, he makes no mention of the need for "world-class" internet access for all students. A speech he gave on "innovation and energy independence" last April has nary a word about the net as an engine for innovation. A speech he gave a year ago called "toward a new age of idealism" says nada about transforming government or connecting citizens through the power of technology. Thanks to Community Counts, which pushed a question that was submitted to the first YouTube debate to Dodd's attention, we know that he cares about media consolidation and supports net neutrality. UPDATE: He was a 2006 co-sponsor of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (S. 215), but it's more than a little odd that you can't find that out from his campaign website (and it doesn't look like he's re-upped as a cosponsor of the 2007 version of the bill). Score Dodd a C.
Dennis Kucinich is...weird when it comes to technology policy. Could it be that it offends his crunchy granola neo-luddite supporters? Take his platform on "media reform." He's all for "serious media reform"--including free air time for candidates, breaking up major media conglomerates, prohibiting vertical integration, and supporting public media controlled by local communities. Might the internet be an ally towards achieving these goals? Kucinich is silent on the topic. His website says more about dealing with electronic waste than the benefits of universal broadband or the potential to transform democracy. He also says more about everything from dealing with global poverty to hemp. Like we said, weird. Grade him a D.
Mike Gravel isn't seriously running for president, is he? That said, Gravel, the walking id of 2008 or the conscience of the Democrats (take your pick), does stake out a strong position in favor of net neutrality on his website. And that's it as far as his stated positions on technology. A central tenet of his campaign is a call for a "national initiative" whereby the people could directly initiate and pass laws. But he is silent on all of the other issues that we raise in judging the candidates' approach to tech policy. We should flunk him, but he gets extra credit for going to James Kotecki's dorm room and being the first Democratic candidate that James interviewed on the net. D-.
Joe Biden doesn't talk about it much (ironically), but he's got a pretty solid handle on tech policy, at least when it comes to the economic benefits of broadband access. His "online nation" platform is quite good: "...to compete in a global economy we must become an Online Nation where every community, business and school has access to high-speed Internet connections," he says. "The US should lead the world in access to the internet." Before running for president, he seemed somewhat squishy about the need to insure net neutrality, but now endorses the concept. To his credit, Biden understands that the real digital divide is in access to broadband, both in rural and low-income urban areas--though we'd love to see some more money behind his stated desire to fix that problem. When it comes to how the internet can transform educational opportunity, however, Biden, like many of his peers, is pretty old-fashioned, talking only about "bringing computers and the Internet to schools," rather than connecting children, parents, teachers and educational resources 24/7. He also appears to have a big blind spot when it comes to bringing our democracy into the 21st century, and like his peers in the race hasn't focused on the value of a national net guard to shore up vital communications in an emergency. We give him a B.
Next up, the Republican field...
]]>Videos after the jump.
]]>The John Edwards campaign asks supporters, “What would you do for $14 million?” Would they give up their favorite food? “Tapioca pudding?” asks one woman. Relocate to New York City? “Too noisy!” says another. Deny millions of Americans health care? Cut to John Edwards arguing that we don’t have universal health care because of lobbyist contributions to the Republicans. The campaign then says that, for every one of the 1,100 drug company lobbyists in Washington, they need a volunteer to spread the word about Edwards’ health care plan. A decent use of “regular people” in a campaign ad. Close to 2,500 views on YouTube.
1
5. Romney Ad Becomes Parody of Itself
Someone added a laugh track from a Saturday Night Live skit to a real Mitt Romney TV ad. The result is that when he opens with the line, “It’s this century’s nightmare: jihadism,” the crowd cracks up as if they reacting to an Andy Samberg skit. Maybe they are. Perceptive mashup or unfunny hack? More than 55,000 views on YouTube.
4. Ron Paul: A New Hope
A few people have referred to this as the “best” Ron Paul video. We’re not quite sure what that means. This one is different from other Paul videos in that it’s not set to an Evanescence song or a rap song, but it does continue the tradition of using favorable media clips, quotes from the debates, and title cards to advance the Ron Paul religion. Plus, an Olympics-style symphonic soundtrack bleeds into… a Simon and Garfunkel song. It’s educational and thorough, but at close to nine minutes it’s a tad too long. More than 400,000 views on YouTube.
3. Fred Thompson: The Next Ronald Reagan
In his first appearance in a Republican debate, Fred Thompson stumbled a bit at first but appeared to regain his ground. As this video (a bit unfairly) shows, he still threw in plent of “ums,” “ahs,” and “erghs.” Over 26,00 views on YouTube.
2. Trent Wisecup Goes Crazy in Rochester
When anti-war activist Bruce Fealk took out his video camera and asked Rep. Joe Knollenberg of Michigan about the war in Iraq and SCHIP, Knollenberg politely responded and quickly ignored him. Fealk was then approached by Knollenberg’s chief of staff, Trent Wisecup, who apparently didn’t realize that video cameras record what’s actually happening, and went a little crazy on Fealk, calling him “un-American,” accusing him of being against America and for Toyota, among other things (they’re near Detroit), all on captured on video. The Politico’s John Bresnahan has more from Wisecup, who defended his statements in the video. More than 30,000 views on YouTube.
1. Poll: Bullshit is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters
The Onion News Network — the video arm of the inimitable Onion magazine — gives a report about the most important issue facing voters: bullshit. “When it comes to electing the leader of the free world, voters look to issues like a candidate’s relationship with their ex-wife, did they ever smoke, where do they vacation, what’s their exercise regimen; these are the kind of core bullshit issues that people really care about.”
]]>We're excited to announce the launch of 10Questions.com, a new kind of online presidential forum, one that aims to make the most of what the internet has to offer to politics.
On 10Questions.com anyone will be able to directly pose video questions to the candidates for President and choose which ones they most want answered. Candidates will be able to answer in detail and without the time limits imposed by traditional televised or on-stage debates. And citizens in turn will be able to give the candidates feedback on whether they actually answer those questions.
We're even more excited to be doing this in cooperation with the New York Times Editorial Board, in association with MSNBC.com, and with an amazing array of more than 40 co-sponsors. (Click here to see the whole list.)
Why a new online presidential forum, on top of all the others this year? Well, we believe the internet offers our democracy the chance to end the era of soundbite TV politics and start the era of community conversation. Old fashioned televised debates have their value, but TV has several inherent limits. Only a few people get to ask questions. The candidates have very little time to answer, forcing them to speak in canned sound bites. The audience has no way of providing meaningful feedback. If the candidate doesn’t answer the questions, we have no way of pushing them to do so.
10Questions will turn all that on its head.
Starting today, the sponsors of 10Questions are asking their millions of readers and the larger public to submit online video questions addressed to the candidates using a variety of platforms (YouTube, MySpace, Yahoo, andBlip.tv), tagging their video with the word “10Questions.” The 10Questions site will then find and display those questions and enable the public to vote up or down on these submissions. At the end of four weeks, on November 14, we'll stop the voting and after a quick audit to check against ballot-stuffing, the top ten vote-getting questions will be submitted to all the major candidates.
The candidates will then have four weeks, from November 17 to December 15, to submit answers to be posted online. As those responses are posted, the public will be given the opportunity to vote again, up or down, on whether the candidates have answered the questions to their satisfaction. Users can vote on as many videos as they like, but they only get one vote per IP address. The process will end December 31.
Is this going to work? Well, call us congenital optimists, but we think 10Questions will demonstrate the wisdom of the crowd. The co-sponsors of 10Questions.com are a cross-partisan array of e-activist groups with giant mailing lists, new media sites with big readerships, and online community hubs and blogs where millions of people participate everyday in political conversation. It’s their involvement in posting and filtering questions to the candidates and the candidates’ responses that will make 10Questions the first truly people-powered online presidential forum in history.
To find out more about how this will all work, and how it all came together, check out the 10Questions About and FAQ pages.
Now it's your turn. Post a video question. Vote on the questions. Watch the candidates answer. Rate their answers. Change the debate. Who knows--maybe we'll improve the way we pick our candidates and even change the course of the election!
Andrew Rasiej, Micah L. Sifry, and David Colarusso, Co-Creators, 10Questions.com
]]>As always, send your favorite videos to us at techpres AT personaldemocracy DOT com.
]]>As always, send your favorite videos to us at techpres AT personaldemocracy DOT com.
8. Obama ‘08 volunteer training in Oakland
Barack Obama staffer supporter Patrick de Temple explains the campaign’s field operation in Oakland. He spends a lot of time pointing to a map of northern California and describing the neighborhoods, precincts, and cities. It’s pretty dry stuff, but illuminating if you’re interested in the nitty gritty of field organizing. A whopping 126 views on YouTube.
7. Ron Paul Girl - Register Now!
Ron Paul Girl is best known for taking her pants off while talking about her favorite presidential candidate. But in this video, a fully dressed Girl pleads with viewers to register as Republicans. Why? So they can vote for Ron Paul in their state primaries. She knows her audience isn’t made up of typical Republicans and might feel queasy about making the switch, so she makes it clear that you can switch back to being a Democrat or a “tree-hugging Green Party member, or whatever it is that you normally are” after the primaries are over. About 19,000 views on YouTube.
6. SNL Skit On Fred Thompson
Saturday Night Live’s Darrell Hammond is the current king of political impressions. Last weekend he took on Fred Thompson in his usual pitch-perfect way. He hits all the right notes, from the ask for applause, to the clearing of the throat, to the perceived, er, laziness. “How badly do I want to be your president? On a scale of 1 to 10, I’m about a 6.” Sixty-thousand views on YouTube.
5. Is Hillary Clinton Abusing YouTube?
It’s more like she doesn’t know how to use it. YouTube user “britethorn” noticed that in a recent Clinton video, the audio was completely out of sync. They tried to tell her in the text comments, but — alas! — the comments were turned off, but they discovered that the campaign did allow video responses, one of which was a John McCain ad! Their conclusion: the Clinton campaign isn’t much interested in using YouTube to have that much-ballyhooed “conversation.” Almost 221,000 views on YouTube.
4. Ron Paul for the Long Haul
The trend is to pair pro-Paul lyrics with hip, contemporary music (witness the Ron Paul/Evanescence pairing we recently highlighted). This video, produced by rapper King Solomon, tells us why every single other candidate is not only the wrong choice, but somehow deeply, infinitely corrupted compared to the righteous Ron Paul. Street Cred: 1, Nuance: 0. More than 31,000 views on YouTube.
3. Sen. John McCain meets a medical marijuana patient
As we noted yesterday, the magnifying-glass effect of presidential campaigns in New Hampshire and Iowa, combined with the accessibility of video, can be a huge help to interest groups publicizing their platforms. Here, a medical marijuana patient asks John McCain if he would continue the practice of arresting users of the drug for medical purposes. McCain turns his back at the mention of “marijuana,” and is surprisingly unreasonable (and uneducated) in his answer. More than 17,000 views on YouTube.
2. Hillary ‘08
Fark TV produced this parody of the wisdom of the common online man, showing what might happen if a slightly unhinged armchair consultant advised the Clinton campaign. “The picture should have cleavage, eatin’ a slice of pizza, holding a menorah with a Christmas tree, wearin’ dress shoes at a NASCAR race…” says our visor-wearin’, MySpace profilin’ hero. Almost 80,000 views on SuperDeluxe.com.
1. James Oddo: Get the f@$*& out of my office!
New York City Council Member James Oddo was interviewed by Norway’s answer to the Daily Show, and the results are hilarious. First question: “Isn’t it against the Constitution that Barack Obama runs for presidency considering the fact that he’s not an American citizen?” It quickly goes downhill from there, ending in an amazing tirade of vulgarities straight out of a Spike Lee movie. More than 660,000 views on YouTube.
]]>After the jump, look out for some bizarre Icelandic rapping about Iraq; Fred Thompson asking a crowd to applause for him; and a scary deconstruction of Hillary Clinton's laughing fits.
]]>As always, if you know of a video you think we should include, send us a link at techpres AT personaldemocracy DOT com.
8. 5th Anniversary of Barack Obama's Anti-War Speach
On the 5th Anniversary of Barack Obama's 2002 speech opposing war with Iraq, his campaign comes up with a creative solution to the fact that they only have 13 seconds of video of that speech.
7. Students In Blackface “Jena 6” Reenactment
After a group of white college students in Louisiana covered themselves in mud and filmed themselves reenacting the Jena 6 assault, they did what any college students would do: they posted the video and images of their game on Facebook. Well, word got out, someone posted the video to YouTube, and now Kristy Smith, a freshman at the University of Louisiana at Monroe, has had to apologize (more details here). “I promise i’m not racist. i have just as many black friends as i do white. And i love them to death,” she told The Smoking Gun.
6. The Loneliest Icelander
Iceland recently announced it was pulling out its one troop (it’s actually a public information officer) from the “coalition” fighting in Iraq. Writer/Director Andy Cobb saw the humor in the news, and produced this hysterical video, which takes Americans’ craziest stereotypes of Icelanders and turns them up to 11.
5. Fred Thompson Hits the Applause Button
After Fred Thompson finished giving a speech to a small gathering in Iowa, he mumbled to stop by thanking the audience for allowing for him to “give my thoughts about some things.” The crowd didn’t respond, so Thompson asked from some applause. Unfortunately, a camera and New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney were there to capture the emblematic moment. Only about 230 views on YouTube.
4. Looking for Love: The College Cost Reduction and Access Act
The Committee on Education and Labor, chaired by Rep. George Miller, produced a snazzy video campaign to promote its College Cost Reduction and Access Act. For a video pushing a piece of legislation, it’s done pretty well (more than 73,000 views as of this posting). Maybe it has to do with Miller deputy chief of staff Justin Hamilton, who does a pretty good job at anthropomorphizing a congressional bill.
3. Rudy skips minority debate to fundraise with Bo Derek
After Rudy Giuliani (and Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson) skipped a debate on black issues in Baltimore due to “scheduling conflicts,” Brave New Films produced a video investigating his whereabouts. According to the video, Giuliani was in California, meeting with former governor Pete Wilson and Bo Derek, among others. In other words, he was raising money. It’s been viewed more than 75,000 times on YouTube.
2. Mitt Romney’s Hypocrisy on Iran Investments
Mitt Romney has been vocal in his opposition to making investments in Iran. Unfortunately, he hasn’t heeded his own advice, invested more than $250,000 in the country himself. This isn’t the first video to illustrate the sharp between what Romney says he believes and what he does.
1. Hillary Clinton Showcasing Her “Humanity”
Noticing a trend during her Sunday talk show blitz a couple of weeks ago, the Daily Show producers strung together a series of Hillary Clinton’s strangely-timed laughs. As Jon Stewart — who continues to be both funny and politically relevant at the same time — points out, the over-the-top laughter makes it appear that Clinton is straining to prove that she isn’t “some kind of synthetic being that cries mercury.” More than 49,000 views on YouTube.
]]>As always, we welcome your suggestions. Send them along to techpres AT personaldemocracy DOT com.
Videos after the jump...
]]>As always, we welcome your suggestions. Send them along to techpres AT personaldemocracy DOT com.
11. Bush Pronounces Mandela Dead. In a press conference, George Bush shocks us with terrible news: “Mandela’s dead.” It isn’t true, of course. As he goes on to say, “because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandela’s,” it becomes clear that (I think) he meant to say that the Mandela-like figures in Iraq are dead because of Saddam Hussein’s repressive treatment of dissenters. More than 170,000 viewers on YouTube have had near-heart attacks at hearing the false news.
10. Barack Obama NYC Rally Trailer. Yesterday Barack Obama led a rally in New York’s Washington Square Park, and to promote the event his campaign released this great send-up of a movie trailer. Produced in association with the fictional “Hope Monger Studios,” the video takes full advantage of Obama’s charm, managing to generate excitement while saying nothing about the candidate. Close to 4,000 views on YouTube.
9. Bill Richardson: The Choice on Iraq. Middle-tier candidate Richardson stakes out his position on Iraq. He’s the only candidate, Democratic or Republican, advocating getting all of the troops out of the country, leaving no residual troops behind. We’re big fans of Richardson’s web videos, which always mention to be forceful and well-produced, and give a solid impression of the candidate, regardless of his policies. Close to 3400 views on the Tube.
8. Five Brothers. A brilliant use of Mitt Romney’s mashup contest, turned against the candidate. The video, jumping off of Romney’s comment that his sons are serving the country by working on his campaign, combines the words of Romney with a parody of films like Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers to produce one of the best anti-campaign ads of the season.
7. Giuliani Takes Phone Call From Wife During NRA Speech. In a move many are claiming they’ve seen before, Rudy Giuliani receives a call from his wife in the middle of a speech to the NRA. “I’m talking to the members of the NRA right now, would you like to say hello? I love and I’ll give you a call as soon as I’m finished, okay?” Is this a ploy to show Rudy’s human side, or just the sign of a needy wife? You be the judge. It’s posted multiple times on YouTube, with a total of about 73,000 views.
6. Leftists protest at 9/11 memorial. When the College Republicans joined the College Democrats in a non-partisan commemoration of the 9/11 attacks, they were besieged by protesters doing nasty stuff like wearing Guantanamo suits and sieg-heiling the American flag. But this video, produced by the College Republicans, does little to rise above partisan squabbling. By labeling the protesters leftists, the producers imply a connection to the Democrats, but “9/11 was an inside job” conspiracy theorists come from the fringes of both the left and right (indeed from somewhere where those fringes meet), and it’s dishonest to imply that they are simply wacky leftists. Almost 46,000 views on YouTube.
5. Silent Debate II. The second “Silent Debate,” moderated by Harry Shearer, pits John McCain against Dennis Kucinich. The one rule: no talking. Shearer asks some tough questions, in response to which the candidates sit and stare. It’s as funny as the first one, with McCain offering a particularly engaging response to a question on trade policy. About 800 views on YouTube, though it’s also hosted on My Damn Channel.
4. Why Tuesday? Why are U.S. elections on Tuesdays? We didn’t know either until we watched Jacob Soboroff’s video announcing the launch of his “Why Tuesday” campaign. As Soboroff points out in this introductory video, the U.S. ranks 139th out of 172 countries in voter turnout! The project’s goal is to fix that. More than 20,000 views on YouTube.
3. Riot at Shwe Dagon Pagoda East gate in Burma. Citizen-powered video has been at the center of the uprising in Burma, where Buddhist monks have led the first revolt in 19 years against the repressive military junta that rules the country. This video and others like it are being posted in almost real time, filling the void left by the lack of free media. This video has been viewed about 12,000 times on YouTube.
2. Elizabeth Edwards - A Question For You. In this intimate video, Elizabeth Edwards knows of what she speaks when she says, “sometimes we put things off, don’t we, we think we have all the time in the world. Well, we don’t.” Continuing to frame the Edwards campaign as a social movement, she makes us feel guilty for not doing our part.
1. Runaround Hsu. Michelle Malkin and HotAir.com take on legally-challenged Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu in this parody. While lacking in subtlety, its funny and, well, true. Bonus points for rhyming the line “gave me money but it wasn’t clean” with “Ponzi scheme.” Almost 32,000 YouTube views.
]]>Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani and his critics continue to fight via video, a Ron Paul supporter goes over top with a video in support of the Texan candidate, and there’s much love for the intertubes.
Have a favorite video? Send it to us at techpres AT personaldemocracy DOT com.
]]>