Lois Davidson, the Missouri mother of murder victim Carol Sue Shields, blames Mike Huckabee for her daughter's death in a new YouTube video.
A new attack ad accusing Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee of freeing a rapist who then committed murder resembles any of the professionally produced negative TV spots shot by political ad agencies for decades.
But the emotional 58-second video doesn't advocate for any particular candidate, and it hasn't aired as a paid advertisement on any television network. Instead, it madeits debut on YouTube on Thursday, where it's chalked up more than 20,000 views, and risen to become the seventh most watched clip in YouTube's news and politics section.
"It's pretty brutal, and it's a very stark reminder to those of us involved in politics of the power that YouTube has to spread a story quickly and virally," says Republican strategist Matthew Klink at Los Angeles-based Cerrell Associates.
The work of 29-year-old Republican operative Keith Emis, the video is a prominent example of the fruits of a March 2006 decision by the Federal Election Commission that exempts non-paid political advertising on the internet from rules
requiring disclosure of who produced the ads. Accusations are flying on message boards that Emis is an undercover supporter of Huckabee's Republican rival, former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson. Emis denies that, and says he made the video independently and was not paid. "That's completely and totally not true," Emis says. "The Fred Thompson campaign has proven to be the biggest disappointment of this season.... He's done nothing but go down in the polls since June, and he's done a poor job of running a political race."
The anti-Huckabee video begins with a close-up of a Missouri murder victim's mother, Lois Davidson, who tells viewers in a graveyard tone that her daughter "won't be home for Christmas this year." The ad then tells the story of victim Carol Sue Shields, who was murdered by serial rapist Wayne Dumond after he was released early under Huckabee's watch as
Arkansas' governor.
Emis released the video on the web in the wee hours of Thursday morning after working all night on it with a friend who normally works at a video production shop handling social events like Bar Mitzvahs. The Arkansas Times dug up his contact information later that day, and when contacted he readily admitted his authorship. He says he shot the video after seeing Davidson speak on CBS News, twice making the 180-mile drive from his home in
Fayetteville, Arkansas, to interview Davidson on camera in Missouri. "There are hundreds of stories like this every year, and they're sad," Emis says. "It's unusual though, that a person who stands a good chance of being the president of the United States would be associated with this." Emis says that he's already been interviewed by a local Iowa television station, and has been contacted by several other national television networks about his creation.
Republican strategists say that the video could damage Huckabee's campaign because it forces him to spend time and money defending himself from charges that he pushed for Wayne Dumond's parole from an Arkansas prison. "Perhaps the greatest impact is that it's transitioned from YouTube to the mainstream media, and it forces Mike Huckabee to divert time from his campaign to deal with it," says strategist Klink. "It's clearly a distraction just at the time when his campaign's taking off." Huckabee's campaign has responded both online and on CNN to the allegations, which first surfaced on the Huffington Post last week. The campaign has posted Huckabee's televised explanation on CNN on YouTube, as well as a long written response on its website. With just over a thousand views, the Huckabee response video doesn't even merit a rank in YouTube's listings.
The problem for Huckabee, says Klink, is that "the charge takes 50 seconds to make, but the response takes six minutes." Still, other strategists say that Huckabee's status as a Baptist minister could protect him from too damaging of a fallout.
"He's still the Baptist preacher from Arkansas, so as long as that imagery is intact, he has that appeal to that part of the GOP electorate," says Greg Strimple, founding partner of New York City-based Mercury Public Affairs.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Presidential Candidates Log On To Check Up With Younger Voters
In 1991, Bill Clinton, who was then the governor of Arkansas on his way to becoming the 42nd president of the United States, stood before cameras and a live crowd and announced he would be seeking the highest office in the land.
Fast-forward 16 years, and there is another Clinton, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., making a similar announcement. But this time there is no live crowd. There are no reporters. Instead, there is a camera and a computer that will broadcast her announcement to the public via the Internet.
This announcement, like similar ones made by Clinton's challengers for the presidency, marked the beginning of what has been a campaign season highly influenced by the World Wide Web. "The use of the World Wide Web and the Internet has become an integral part of modern political campaigns. In 2008, the (Internet communications) person has a seat at the table with the other key people in the campaign. You can't have a viable campaign and not have a strong Internet component," said Matt Klink, executive vice president at Cerrell Associates, an L.A.-based political consulting firm.
Presidential hopefuls have used the Internet in a variety of ways to promote their candidacies, including e-mailing supporters announcements about campaign developments, creating websites, creating Facebook profiles, and raising funds.
But this election cycle, the Internet has also been used by the average citizen through Web sites such as YouTube and blogs, to not only show support for or to register complaints against candidates, but also to change political discourse. "I think that the agenda of this campaign is more open than previous. The issues the candidates have to talk about are less under their control than any time I can remember in my lifetime," said Tim Groeling, a professor of communication studies.
SOCIAL NETWORKING
The rise of the Internet this presidential election cycle has resulted in the visibility of candidates on social networking Web sites such as Facebook, MySpace and Meetup. At least to some extent, presidential campaigns have built their presence on these networks to reach the often unreachable 18- to 25-year-old demographic. "Prior to the Internet, it was virtually impossible for an old white man running for president to communicate with a college student," said Jordan Lieberman, publisher of Campaigns and Elections magazine.
Now, that ability is readily available to candidates, and in many cases for little cost. According to techPresident.com, a Web site that tracks the Internet campaigns of presidential candidates, the largest social network in terms of Facebook supporters, MySpace friends and Meetup members has been built by Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the Democratic field and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas in the Republican field.
This does not mean, however, that candidates without extensive support on social networks will necessarily do worse on election day. Experts caution that Internet support does not necessarily translate to actual support. "I think that (the Internet) allows students to join a campaign very efficiently. They can pledge allegiance or support to any candidate. However the ability to translate that virtual support to volunteering or voting on election day, I am not convinced," Lieberman said.
FUNDRAISING
In this election cycle, the Internet has also had a profound effect on the fundraising efforts of individual candidates. "Fundraising on the Internet has been a massive change in how campaigns are run. It is going to fundamentally change the way presidential elections are financed," Groeling said.
In July 2007, The New York Times reported that the three front-running Democratic candidates, Clinton, Obama and former-Sen. John Edwards, had raised over $28million online in the first six months of the year.
The numbers did not include the second-quarter totals from Clinton, whose campaign chose not to report them. In the same report, the three then-front-running Republican candidates, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, were cited as having raised a total of approximately $14 million online over the same period.
Many of these contributions came from so-called "low-dollar contributors," who, having donated less than the maximum allowed by law, can donate again to a candidate. The maximum level for the 2008 election cycle is $2,300. "Barack Obama has really dominated. The thing that scares people about Barack Obama is that he has a lot of small donors and he can go back to those small donors and ask them for more money. Hillary Clinton has less donors but they have given more money. (Obama's) potential to raise money is so huge," Klink said.
As of October, 47,643 people, or approximately 25 percent of all Obama donors, had given less than $200 to his campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics. But 38,487 people, or approximately 13 percent of all Clinton donors, had done the same. The "top-tier candidates" are not the only ones making headway with Internet fundraising, though. On Nov. 5, Paul raised $4.2 million in a span of 24 hours, setting the single-day fundraising record for the Republican field. "The Internet has exploded the world of low-dollar fundraising from average citizens," Lieberman said. "It helps the little guy. It has certainly democratized the fundraising of political campaigning," he added.
But the ability to raise large amounts of money over the Internet does not translate to being able to win a party's nomination for the presidency. "Ultimately the second-tier candidates are going to remain second-tier candidates because you have to raise so much money to become viable. The only real candidate that has surmounted that this year is Mike Huckabee," Klink said.
THE YOUTUBE EFFECT
On Nov. 28, CNN and YouTube hosted the Republican presidential candidates in a user-driven debate in which questions were submitted via YouTube by the general public.
The debate, which was the counterpart to the previously held CNN/YouTube debate featuring the Democratic candidates, was watched by approximately 4.5 million viewers according to Nielsen television ratings, and was the most-watched debate of this election cycle. "Clearly the YouTube debates are a phenomenon of the Internet and its impact on political campaigns," Klink said. But because of the format of the debate, not all believe the debates are as democratizing as they have been advertised as being.
For the debates, questions are submitted by the public, but then it is up to the moderator's discretion which questions are asked. "(The debates) are actually attempts to put democratic window dressing on what is fundamentally an undemocratic process. You had people submitting questions but then CNN deciding what questions were asked. That is still exercising agenda control," Groeling said.
Others argue that this process is necessary to ensure that the questions remain relevant and pertinent to the upcoming election. "The role of (CNN) is to make sure the questions are relevant and can help people make decisions. The questions asked were great examples of bringing more issues to the table," Lieberman said.
Not all of YouTube's effect on the presidential campaign has been felt through the debates, however. Through the Web site, candidates, as well as citizens, can post videos promoting, or in some cases harming, campaigns.
Through their own ouTube channels, candidates have posted videos that clarify and promote their positions, attack the positions of their opponents, showcase recent endorsements, and, in some instances, poke fun at themselves. "It's a wonderful tool. Some of the most memorable parts of the presidential campaigns so far have been YouTube videos," Lieberman said.
For example, the Clinton campaign posted videos spoofing "The Sopranos" and former-Gov. Mike Huckabee's campaign posted videos featuring the now-famous Chuck Norris jokes. "They humanize these candidates, and to make use of this tool, it is probably one of the most important tools out there," Lieberman added.
But, despite the benefits of the Internet, there are also negative effects that can stem from it, including the ability to produce damaging information and disseminate it to a broad audience.
"I think poorly sourced information is going to play a greater and greater role as the public can put up what they want, outside the national media's filter," Groeling said.
But according to Lieberman, the Internet also makes it easier to track who has released the negative information.
Therefore, though it provides people with the avenue to hurt a campaign, overall Lieberman said he believes the Internet has had a positive effect on American elections. "At the end of the day we are better off for having it," he said.
Fast-forward 16 years, and there is another Clinton, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., making a similar announcement. But this time there is no live crowd. There are no reporters. Instead, there is a camera and a computer that will broadcast her announcement to the public via the Internet.
This announcement, like similar ones made by Clinton's challengers for the presidency, marked the beginning of what has been a campaign season highly influenced by the World Wide Web. "The use of the World Wide Web and the Internet has become an integral part of modern political campaigns. In 2008, the (Internet communications) person has a seat at the table with the other key people in the campaign. You can't have a viable campaign and not have a strong Internet component," said Matt Klink, executive vice president at Cerrell Associates, an L.A.-based political consulting firm.
Presidential hopefuls have used the Internet in a variety of ways to promote their candidacies, including e-mailing supporters announcements about campaign developments, creating websites, creating Facebook profiles, and raising funds.
But this election cycle, the Internet has also been used by the average citizen through Web sites such as YouTube and blogs, to not only show support for or to register complaints against candidates, but also to change political discourse. "I think that the agenda of this campaign is more open than previous. The issues the candidates have to talk about are less under their control than any time I can remember in my lifetime," said Tim Groeling, a professor of communication studies.
SOCIAL NETWORKING
The rise of the Internet this presidential election cycle has resulted in the visibility of candidates on social networking Web sites such as Facebook, MySpace and Meetup. At least to some extent, presidential campaigns have built their presence on these networks to reach the often unreachable 18- to 25-year-old demographic. "Prior to the Internet, it was virtually impossible for an old white man running for president to communicate with a college student," said Jordan Lieberman, publisher of Campaigns and Elections magazine.
Now, that ability is readily available to candidates, and in many cases for little cost. According to techPresident.com, a Web site that tracks the Internet campaigns of presidential candidates, the largest social network in terms of Facebook supporters, MySpace friends and Meetup members has been built by Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the Democratic field and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas in the Republican field.
This does not mean, however, that candidates without extensive support on social networks will necessarily do worse on election day. Experts caution that Internet support does not necessarily translate to actual support. "I think that (the Internet) allows students to join a campaign very efficiently. They can pledge allegiance or support to any candidate. However the ability to translate that virtual support to volunteering or voting on election day, I am not convinced," Lieberman said.
FUNDRAISING
In this election cycle, the Internet has also had a profound effect on the fundraising efforts of individual candidates. "Fundraising on the Internet has been a massive change in how campaigns are run. It is going to fundamentally change the way presidential elections are financed," Groeling said.
In July 2007, The New York Times reported that the three front-running Democratic candidates, Clinton, Obama and former-Sen. John Edwards, had raised over $28million online in the first six months of the year.
The numbers did not include the second-quarter totals from Clinton, whose campaign chose not to report them. In the same report, the three then-front-running Republican candidates, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, were cited as having raised a total of approximately $14 million online over the same period.
Many of these contributions came from so-called "low-dollar contributors," who, having donated less than the maximum allowed by law, can donate again to a candidate. The maximum level for the 2008 election cycle is $2,300. "Barack Obama has really dominated. The thing that scares people about Barack Obama is that he has a lot of small donors and he can go back to those small donors and ask them for more money. Hillary Clinton has less donors but they have given more money. (Obama's) potential to raise money is so huge," Klink said.
As of October, 47,643 people, or approximately 25 percent of all Obama donors, had given less than $200 to his campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics. But 38,487 people, or approximately 13 percent of all Clinton donors, had done the same. The "top-tier candidates" are not the only ones making headway with Internet fundraising, though. On Nov. 5, Paul raised $4.2 million in a span of 24 hours, setting the single-day fundraising record for the Republican field. "The Internet has exploded the world of low-dollar fundraising from average citizens," Lieberman said. "It helps the little guy. It has certainly democratized the fundraising of political campaigning," he added.
But the ability to raise large amounts of money over the Internet does not translate to being able to win a party's nomination for the presidency. "Ultimately the second-tier candidates are going to remain second-tier candidates because you have to raise so much money to become viable. The only real candidate that has surmounted that this year is Mike Huckabee," Klink said.
THE YOUTUBE EFFECT
On Nov. 28, CNN and YouTube hosted the Republican presidential candidates in a user-driven debate in which questions were submitted via YouTube by the general public.
The debate, which was the counterpart to the previously held CNN/YouTube debate featuring the Democratic candidates, was watched by approximately 4.5 million viewers according to Nielsen television ratings, and was the most-watched debate of this election cycle. "Clearly the YouTube debates are a phenomenon of the Internet and its impact on political campaigns," Klink said. But because of the format of the debate, not all believe the debates are as democratizing as they have been advertised as being.
For the debates, questions are submitted by the public, but then it is up to the moderator's discretion which questions are asked. "(The debates) are actually attempts to put democratic window dressing on what is fundamentally an undemocratic process. You had people submitting questions but then CNN deciding what questions were asked. That is still exercising agenda control," Groeling said.
Others argue that this process is necessary to ensure that the questions remain relevant and pertinent to the upcoming election. "The role of (CNN) is to make sure the questions are relevant and can help people make decisions. The questions asked were great examples of bringing more issues to the table," Lieberman said.
Not all of YouTube's effect on the presidential campaign has been felt through the debates, however. Through the Web site, candidates, as well as citizens, can post videos promoting, or in some cases harming, campaigns.
Through their own ouTube channels, candidates have posted videos that clarify and promote their positions, attack the positions of their opponents, showcase recent endorsements, and, in some instances, poke fun at themselves. "It's a wonderful tool. Some of the most memorable parts of the presidential campaigns so far have been YouTube videos," Lieberman said.
For example, the Clinton campaign posted videos spoofing "The Sopranos" and former-Gov. Mike Huckabee's campaign posted videos featuring the now-famous Chuck Norris jokes. "They humanize these candidates, and to make use of this tool, it is probably one of the most important tools out there," Lieberman added.
But, despite the benefits of the Internet, there are also negative effects that can stem from it, including the ability to produce damaging information and disseminate it to a broad audience.
"I think poorly sourced information is going to play a greater and greater role as the public can put up what they want, outside the national media's filter," Groeling said.
But according to Lieberman, the Internet also makes it easier to track who has released the negative information.
Therefore, though it provides people with the avenue to hurt a campaign, overall Lieberman said he believes the Internet has had a positive effect on American elections. "At the end of the day we are better off for having it," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
