How Clinton Lost, The Online Battle For the Masses
Friday, June 6th, 2008Experts in Interactive Media say candidate never progressed beyond traditional uses
The rise and fall of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign can be told through video - from her first announcement to the suspension of her campaign, scheduled for Saturday. Some of the video was scripted fare, much of it wasn’t. Some of it aired on network TV, much of it spread virally online.
And all of it was viewed enough to dominate a news cycle - or in Clinton’s case, the campaign’s narrative.
What hurt Clinton most, political analysts say, is that she couldn’t consistently use the newfound ubiquity of video to soften her image with voters. Or, as George Washington University professor and new media analyst Michael Cornfeld said, “It’s like the Clintons, both of them, had sort of a ‘Sunset Boulevard’ thing going on. They were silent screen stars who couldn’t make the transition to talkies.”
Conquering video in the digital age has less to do with being telegenic or smart - as both Clintons are. Being a politician in the YouTube era means being comfortable with giving up control of your message, and realizing that everything you say or do can be uploaded within minutes for the whole world to see - and then mashed up into something new.
Video is the media currency of the millions of young Americans who voted in the primary seasons, many for the first time. Stories told through video percolated to traditional media from blogs and online advocacy sites, from the tirades of Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, to the off-campaign script comments from Bill Clinton.
Authenticity is more prized online than high production values, as the only thing worse than being caught in a gaffe is being perceived as over-scripted. For much of the first half of the campaign, analysts say Clinton was over-scripted.
“Hillary’s announcement video had really high production values, like it was a made-for-TV movie,” said Dan Manatt, executive producer of PoliticsTV.com, a political video site. So were her first Web chats, where she answered questions from voters. They may have looked good, but they weren’t the stuff that generates buzz for a campaign.
“The Web values authenticity,” Manatt said, “And these were seen as staged and scripted and inauthentic.”
One Obama supporter seized upon Hillary Clinton’s stilted quality and created the “Vote Different” online video, a mash-up of Apple’s famous 1984 Macintosh ad and Hillary’s early Web efforts. It portrayed Clinton as a Big Brother figure, and pointed viewers to Obama’s website.
An Obama supporter, Phil de Vellis, created it on a Sunday afternoon because he was frustrated with the way politicians were using online video. “They were treating it just like TV. They were broadcasting things online. You have to do more. You have to interact with your audiences.” Plus, he wanted to show how an individual - using new media tools - could change the course of the campaign.
“We’re starting to see in these campaigns where being seen as too scripted can be seen as a liability,” said Patrick Ruffini, a GOP online strategist and founder of the new The Next Right blog, “in that you can be lampooned for it.”
It’s not like Obama didn’t have his YouTube nightmares - the nation surely has not seen the last of his former pastor. But at the height of the Wright controversy, Obama delivered a long, nuanced speech about race in America. Within a week, nearly 4 million people had watched it.
