TUBE FIGHT

YouTube has become an important tool in the 2008 American presidential election campaign, as both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama use it to their advantage. Talk about American presidential elections getting techsavvy. Politicians have become wiser about the potential of the internet and latest technology. If the last one in 2004 was about online funding and blogging, 2008 will go down in history as the YouTube elections. Digital campaigning is shaping the elections this time, says an article in the Economist. In 2004, bloggers wrote about the presidential debates. In 2008, voters will be able, through YouTube, to send in video-recorded questions to the debate’s moderators. Even well-known bloggers will be brought in for strengthening the campaign. What’s more, the ads, unlike in the past, are much more innovative and interesting. Take the example of the video made by the campaign for Hillary Clinton. Released on her website and watched on YouTube, it was a creative hit. Hillary and Bill sit in a diner, discussing which song she will choose for her campaign theme. They ponder the selections in their table-top jukebox. Finally, just before they make their choice, the screen goes black. It was a clever parody of the final episode of The Sopranos. Viewers then had to go to Hillary’s campaign website to find out which song the Clintons — encouarged by voters on her website — finally chose. It is You and I, by Celine Dion, a Canadian singer. Before this, the ad for Hillary’s rival Barack Obama created a buzz. It was a parody, a direct rip-off of a 1984 Apple ad that portrayed IBM as Big Brother, with Hillary standing in for Big Brother on this occasion. Unlike Hillary, Obama has been successful in making the best use of online funding. The fact that he has raised funds online, from a large number of donors, is working in his favour. What’s interesting is that YouTube keeps the candidates under scrutiny. They have to be extra careful of what they say. A public mistake can now land the candidate in trouble, as George Allen, a Republican, discovered to his horror. His use of an apparent racial slur, caused a huge furore last year. He was running for the Senate in Virginia last year but lost to his opponent, Jim Webb. The defeat was triggered by a videotape of Allen referring to an Indian-American, a volunteer with Webb, as macaca. The term, in some European cultures, is considered a racial slur against African immigrants. In a previous election Allen’s comment might have been missed, but in 2006 the young staffer, S R Sidarth, who worked for Webb had taken to following the Republican and filming him. But one wonders how big an impact will technology actually make on the votes. Obama is popular on MySpace. But these friends may not necessarily translate into votes. Young users of new technology are not as important as the dedicated and capable “ground troops” in a campaign. The latter come from unions, religious groups and others. Democrat Howard Dean’s story is illustrative — thousands of his enthusiastic workers descended upon Iowa for that state’s early Democratic caucus. But this much-touted “perfect storm” of volunteers, mostly non-Iowan, failed him. Name recognition, money and old-fashioned organisation are virtues that no amount of net savvy can replace. Dean finished a distant third in Iowa, and never recovered.