A Politician’s Presence Online: Does it Legitimize or Jeopardize their Campaign?

Having only recently entered the blogosphere, I was somewhat surprised at the number of blogs that exist solely to analyze political events and politicians. Accordingly, in my previous post I mentioned the potential for the internet to sway the next election and the fact that online advertising is likely to have both a positive and negative influence on a candidate’s campaign. Unfortunately, the true effectiveness of an online presence for a presidential candidate both in terms of finance and awareness is unknown (see below image of Mitt Romney's Facebook profile). However, the diverse and ambiguous nature of internet sources has prompted me to compare its power to that of traditional media, and I have therefore decided this week to explore the blogosphere to further understand what bloggers feel about presidential candidates’ relationship with the internet. The first post I found, “Is the Next President on YOUR ‘Friends’ List,” is published by AOL Consumer Advisor and host of DIY Network's Tech Out My House, Regina Lewis. Her entry discusses potential motives for candidates who establish online identities and the growing importance of marketing in this manner (sample "Friends" list on left). The second, found on Beltway Blogroll by the editor of National Journal’s Technology Daily K. Daniel Glover, analyzes a new trend that has emerged from politically-inspired blogs: nutpicking. Nutpicking is the practice of culling negative visitor comments from blogs and using them as evidence in “attack ads” against a specific candidate, party or blog. I have offered my comments on their posts below as well as directly on the authors’ respective blogs.

“Is the Next President on YOUR ‘Friends’ List?”
Comment:
First, I want to thank you for your insight into the online community’s influence over presidential candidates and their campaigns; you give credit to many of the benefits that having an online presence can offer for influencing presidential elections. I agree that having an online identity, a profile on Facebook for example, allows candidates to establish relationships with people who are not particularly interested in politics. This is the result of their interactive ability that provides a unique medium for candidates to reach out to a younger audience. As a university student, however, I would be interested in knowing how effective Facebook and Myspace profiles are in communicating candidates’ positions. Because the internet is cluttered with ads and spam, and because computer-savvy users can create phony “replica” sites, it is not easy for Facebook users to know which sites are valid and which should be avoided. When we learn about “new friends” in these interactive communities, our generation is rightfully suspicious, and we have learned to question the identity and authority of everything we see, especially online. Additionally, while I agree that the internet “enables large numbers of small donations from everyday people,” I would like to know how many of those donations are actually from new as opposed to regular campaign donors. Especially when trying to reach a younger crowd, the possibility of a Facebook user spending money while browsing through their “new friends” does not seem very promising. The internet is certainly changing the marketing of politics, but it is not going to usurp the role of television anytime soon. Campaigns will simply have to add it into their strategy and learn how to exploit it better.

“‘Nutpicking’ The Comments on Liberal Blogs”
Comment:
Your opinions on nutpicking are both informative and interesting. I agree when you argue that attacking bloggers is a “mistake for politicians” because it ruins their credibility, but also because it puts the bloggers in the limelight, and may draw unwanted attention to the very blog that is being denounced. However, while it is possible that few voters will realize the attack ads are “silly” for being sourced to blogs rather than “authoritative sources,” it may be a dangerous assumption to assume all voters will not be swayed by this form of marketing. Candidates are seeking approval from a vast audience, and since attack ads are shown on other forms of media rather than the internet, those viewers that are not as computer-intelligent as bloggers (or other frequent internet users) may not consider the amount of credibility that should be given–or not given–to blogs. Since the internet does give candidates the potential to raise money and support, it would be unwise for politicians to ignore the blogosphere. Harsh criticism from the public is nothing new; it seems childish for candidates to nutpick as a strategy of opposing–and drawing attention to–the enemy. Understanding that blogs can help and hinder a candidate’s campaign, why not approach the blogosphere with a “can’t beat them, join them” strategy? Candidates may create better publicity by integrating the blogosphere into their campaign rather than using it as a weapon against opposing parties. That way, the blogosphere’s nature of being a “free exchange of ideas” is maintained. Senator Barack Obama is a good example: recently reaching out to bloggers through his own blog, Obama created a poll specifically designed to establish a healthy interaction with bloggers and promote positive awareness in the media.

Celebrity Endorsements: Their Influence on the Race for the Democratic Vote

As the 2008 presidential elections draw closer, the race for America’s vote has never been tighter. Tension between competing political parties is expected; however, this season is uniquely defined by even more intense debate among candidates within the same political party. The struggle to capture the American public has become increasingly difficult in a cluttered media environment. Technological advancements make traditional television advertisements easy to avoid and allow viewers who are more interested in popular culture to avoid political messages altogether. As a result, in competing for the public’s vote, candidates have to rely on other forms of marketing to establish their position. While celebrity endorsements of presidential candidates are not a new trend in campaign history, their role unfortunately seems to hold significant importance in influencing today’s public opinion and increasing voter turnout.

Recently, many Democratic candidates have augmented their presidential campaigns with celebrity endorsements. On September 8, talk-show host and media icon Oprah Winfrey held a fundraiser at her home in Montecito, California to endorse Senator Barack Obama (see in the image above). This event, which raised more than $3 million for Obama’s campaign, marks the first time Winfrey has publicly endorsed a politician. More significant than the financial revenue, however, is the partnership between celebrity and politician, which is likely to influence the rest of Obama’s campaign. He is now directly associated with Winfrey and has connection to her viewers as well. Other candidates competing for the same vote are forced to solicit their own endorsements so they can share in the reflected fame and notoriety of the endorser.

One such example is a response that came only six days after Obama’s fundraiser with Winfrey. His biggest rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, appeared in Los Angeles with basketball marvel "Magic" Johnson on September 14th (at a fundraiser in Beverly Hills, shown on the right). Although the former Lakers player is not equivalent to Winfrey in fame and fan support, political scientist Franklin D. Gilliam Jr. believes the endorsement shows Clinton’s ability to “compete in a legitimate way” with Obama. Both candidates are seeking to reach the same demographic – the black vote – and are associating themselves with celebrity African-Americans in hopes of achieving just that.

A positive result of swaying her viewers to vote for Obama is that Winfrey’s activism has the potential to increase voter turnout among America’s youth and minority population. In fact, in "On the Media" from New York Public Radio, USC History Professor Steve Ross stated if “Oprah can get even one percent of the national population to vote who did not vote before... that one percent can make all the difference in the world."

How does all this affect Americans' opinion of the two candidates? Campaigning on television reaches a vast audience of viewers. The “Oprah Winfrey” show alone attracts nearly eight and a half million people every weekday. Moreover, her ability to increase sales of products is legendary, to wit: Oprah’s book club selections become instant best sellers. This is a smart strategy for Obama because it is not hard to believe that if Winfrey can sell books, she can also sell a political candidate. By associating oneself with a celebrity, the politician can advertise him or herself in a less political environment and have the endorser speak on their behalf as well.

The role of celebrity endorsers in campaigns is not the sole reason for an increase in awareness among the general public, however. With internet usage and availability in virtually every home, presidential are now able to reach potential voters through diverse media. Barack and Clinton both have established websites (see Obama's blog on the left), MySpace and Facebook profiles, and YouTube videos defining their campaigns. These all play a part in influencing public opinion and identifying the candidates with an internet savvy generation.

Whether celebrity endorsements are successful in influencing a voter toward one politician over another, or if they simply establish a candidate’s presence in a cluttered and otherwise competitive entertainment medium, one thing is certain: celebrities are directly influencing the 2008 presidential campaign. The American public is more aware – and divided – in their opinion of presidential candidates today than in past elections.

The only question left to ask is whether or not voters will appreciate the celebrity endorsements. The possibility of a partnership backfiring cannot be overlooked. Will voters appreciate both Winfrey and Johnson’s opinion or will the endorsers' images discourage voters from siding with the candidates they prefer? Will this strengthen or divide the Democratic Party, and will these endorsements confuse or encourage the divided America to vote one way or another? Although definitive answers lie months ahead, and the real success of celebrity endorsements cannot be determined just yet, it is important that the American public is aware of the media’s powerful influence on the election process.