Substance and the 2008 Elections

Since the Presidential primary contests began almost two years ago, I have been calling for a substantive debate of the issues.  I told my friends, my family, and anyone who would listen to me that the key to victory — especially for the Democrats — was to articulate (and discuss, in detail, with the voters) real solutions to the challenges that are facing our society.

There are many issues: the war, the economy, education, the environment and climate change, various social issues, etc. that the candidates aren’t talking about in any depth.  Their websites only host a few paragraphs about any issue.  Their speeches gloss over the important points.  The press hasn’t called them on it.  Hillary Clinton (full disclosure: I am a supporter and donor to Senator Clinton’s campaign) has done better than Barack Obama, but both have fallen well short.

This week, the New York Times agreed with me.  The editorial board wrote:

… it means that there is still a chance to take this campaign and elevate it, finally, to a serious debate about major issues. That is what American voters deserve. And that is what Democrats must do if they hope to break the Republican grip on the White House.

And then this…

For Democrats, changing this dynamic is all the more urgent because Senator John McCain has now won the Republican nomination, and he visited the White House on Wednesday to collect the dubious blessing of Mr. Bush’s endorsement. Mr. McCain is now free to enjoy the food fight knowing that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be weakened. He can now hone his attack for the fall.

And this…

The quality of this contest has not reflected that interest or the candidates’ intellect. Instead of a serious debate about trade, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have engaged in a depressing fit of pandering to voters in economically troubled Ohio. They tripped over each other in rushing to attack the 14-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement rather than offering voters honest answers about what government can and should do to help them adapt to globalization’s challenges.

And this…

Even if their differences on Iraq are negligible, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton should still debate the issue, explaining how they plan to bring American troops home and contain the chaos…

Instead of talking seriously about reforming health care, each side has run attack ads distorting the other’s proposals. There has been some discussion about taxes, the home-mortgage crisis and the slowing economy — but mostly when the candidates are asked about these issues during debates.

And finally this…

Nearly a third of the 50 states have yet to hold a nominating contest. Before they do, we’d like to hear fewer character attacks and a lot more discussion of the nation’s many problems after nearly eight years of failed Republican rule. That is the Democrats’ comparative advantage. They should start to use it now.

Voters have an important responsibility in our country and they take their role seriously.  While some voters choose based on personality, I feel confident that most voters decide who to cast a ballot for based on the issues.  We all believe something, and have opinions about how to tackle the tough issues (even when we don’t fully understand them) and we look for the candidate that shares, or at least represents, our beliefs.

So far, the candidates haven’t given us much substance to use in making our choice.  There are many months left (it seems) in the Democratic primary contest, and more months beyond that when John McCain will debate Senator Obama or Senator Clinton further.  Let’s hope the candidates finally listen to me, and the New York Times, and start talking turkey.

Email and the Presidential Campaign — ClickZ Comments

I was quoted in an article for ClickZ today talking about how the Clinton and Obama campaigns are using email in their GOTV efforts in Texas.  Here is a quick excerpt:

Still, the fact is e-mail recipients haven’t all made up their minds. By neglecting to discuss issues in recent e-mails to Texas voters and distinguish one candidate from the other, both campaigns may have taken support for granted.

“It assumes that everybody who signs up for the e-mail list is a supporter…and in a closely contested race that people aren’t looking for reinforcement of why they should vote,” said Reich. “Campaigns do themselves a disservice by thinking that e-mail in particular is not going to fall into somebody’s inbox who needs more than just a reminder to find their polling place.”

You can read the whole article here.

I think the campaigns have missed a significant opportunity to use email to reach and engage prospective voters and talk about issues that are important on a local level.  The content of the emails could have been more focused, more practical, and generally more inspiring.  There are so many advancements in the use of technology to support grassroots politics this year it surprises me that email was overlooked.
There is still a lot of campaigning to do this year, so maybe the campaigns will learn their lesson.

2 Days of Riding For 4 Years Of Hope

I walked into a Starbucks this morning in Cambridge and saw a flyer that read “2 Days of Riding For 4 Years Of Hope.”  It was promoting a bike ride across Massachusetts to help raise money for Senator Obama’s campaign.  When I pointed it out to my colleague, Nicco, he said “Oh my god, he’s going to win” — because the Clinton campaign isn’t organizing, or inspiring, anything even remotely this creative.

I am a Hillary Clinton supporter, and donor, and fully believe she is the better candidate.  I still believe she can, and will, win the nomination.  But, it is painfully clear to me right now that Senator Obama’s team is out-thinking and out-maneuvering Senator Clinton’s team.  I never thought I would see the day when any team beat the Clintons at campaigning.

Presidential Announcements v2.0

I had this really long, eloquent post written about how all the candidates are using the web to launch their political campaigns.  I hit the wrong button and the whole thing was lost.  I won’t try to reconstruct the entire thing, but let me try and summarize a couple of the key points.

John Edwards announced his campaign for the Presidency with a web video.  Barack Obama used a web video a few weeks later to do the same.  And now Hillary Clinton, who announced her intention to run for President on Saturday, has used a video on her Website to break the news.  It seems you can’t be a candidate for President - at least not a Democratic candidate - without launching your campaign on the web.  (Memo to Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, who announced their candidacy’s on the Sunday Morning Talk Shows — you might want to check to make sure your announcement registered at all, or consider posting the video of your appearance on YouTube to make sure people take it seriously).

Both the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post used Senator Clinton’s announcement to analyze the role that the web will play in the upcoming campaign.  The LA Times offers a brief history of the highs and lows of internet campaigns over the past decade, writing:

The Internet’s power both to make and break politicians has been vividly demonstrated in recent years.

In 2004, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean jumped from political obscurity to grab the front-runner’s position in the initial stages of the Democratic race largely on the strength of the interest and fundraising he generated online.

Last year, Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) watched his reelection campaign — and his hopes of emerging as a prime contender for the GOP presidential nomination — go down in flames after a video clip of him addressing a young man of Indian descent as “macaca” made the rounds on the Web.

Barely a factor in campaigning 11 years ago when Clinton’s husband won reelection as president, the Internet has become an integral part of the political landscape, with every major candidate fielding a website and seeking to create a virtual community around his — or her — campaign.

But with the recent advent of YouTube and other video-sharing sites, analysts said the most intriguing aspect of the evolving use of the Web may be as part of an immense game of political “gotcha,” in which campaigns seek to catch opposing candidates off-guard and off-message, as happened to Allen.

By contrast, the Washington Post took more of an editorial stance on what makes for good web video in politics, offering this comparison Clinton, Obama, and Edwards:

Unlike other candidates (coughBarack Obamacough), whose videos might have been produced by a guy with a cellphone camera, Clinton’s announcement was a veritable showpiece of Hollywood-style set design, lighting and cinematography. While Clinton, looking radiant in a red jacket and flattering makeup, affected the demeanor of a kaffe-klatching neighbor while speaking about the Iraq war, energy, Social Security and health care, the camera swung with pen dular subtlety between a background tableaux of framed family pictures and a fabulous table lamp exuding a warm glow. In fact, the background is so eye-catching, so crowded with totemic details, so bursting with semiotic potential, that I missed whole passages of Clinton’s statement the first time around. (And yes, I do want that lamp.)

The effect was one of breathtaking political shrewdness and brilliant staging, like a mash-up between “The West Wing” and Diane Keaton’s latest holiday heartwarmer. And for all its studied spontaneity, its air of having been pre-tested, choreographed, and managed to within a microfiber of Clinton’s mascara, it worked, if only to provide a little eye candy within a grainy sea of canned speeches and awkward iChats. The aesthetic sophistication suited Clinton, who, as a former first lady and a U.S. senator, would look hopelessly out of place in most other contexts (rocking the mom jeans in the Ninth Ward? Uh-uh. Maybe an ornate Senate office, but where’s the zazz in yet another wall of law books?), and the look and the script warmed up a woman portrayed as either an amoral ice queen or control-freaky dragon lady by her political opponents.

Three quick points: First, the novelty of launching a campaign on the web should have worn off a long time ago.  The web is not even close to being the most dynamic vehicle for delivering information anymore, politics has just been slow to embrace what virtually every major consumer brand and entertainment company in the world has been doing for the past five years.  A really nice website, a blog, or even a web video announcement is not enough.  Its time you ran a fully funded, fully supported effort online to promote your campaign - and to engage the audience that chooses to get its information there instead of through traditional news or campaign events (which are still important as well).  Second, announcing your campaign online sets all of our expectations very high that you, as a candidate, will remain committed to using the web.  John Edwards, you have already created behind-the-scenes web videos about yourself, recorded podcast conversations about issues, and similar.  Are you going to keep doing that when you are visiting four states a day - so we can see what really happens to a person when they don’t sleep enough, eat healthy, or have complete control over their message?  Hillary Clinton, you are taking your web efforts to the next level already, inviting the audience to create the first guest blog post to be published on your site and hosting a series of live video chats with the web audience over the coming week.  Are you going to host live web-chats every week, about any topic?  Are you going to take on the large and vocal segment of the online audience who questions your policies, challenges your positions, and even insults you personally — or will your web campaign, like your offline efforts, be so highly managed and controlled that it fails to really engage people?  Finally, the media needs to find a better way to cover and express the value the web plays in this upcoming cycle than how they are currently doing it.  We have all read, time and time again, what a big impact the web is playing and will continue to play in politics.  Its time to assign a full time, daily reporter to cover each campaign’s online efforts.  It is time to hold the campaigns accountable for what they say will be an online, grassroots fueled effort and put the same scrutiny on their web efforts as you do on their fundraising, their television ads, their speeches, and — even in some cases, their clothing.  Just as you have pushed increasing resources into covering traditional news through the online medium, now its time to recognize that the online efforts of a presidential campaign are also news and cover them accordingly.

It should be an exciting couple of years for those of us who live, work, and love the online medium.  I will definitely be watching to see what happens.  I hope the political world realizes the potential that it has to reach and engage the audience before and lives up to its end of the bargain.

Update: I wasn’t totally fair to Bill Richardson.  He has a very nice website (here) and has posted his announcement video to YouTube and other places.  He has a MySpace page, a Facebook profile, etc.  He’s following the new media playbook pretty much to all the way.  We will have to wait and see how that works for him.