As election nears, Web's grass roots still growing

(continued from previous page)

happen to the sites after the election has concluded, both teams say the sites will operate in some form.

The Bush site claims a team of 20 workers while the Kerry team numbers 30 staffers, but the two have become equally adept at using the Web to quickly adapt their campaigns' online messages. The fact that both sites feature animated cartoons parodying their rivals' positions and personalities also shows the campaigners have followed mainstream political trends, like the success of JibJab's political Flash cartoons.

Perhaps the most technology-centric efforts produced by either of the sites were the news feeds they created to serve as companions to the televised debates. Whereas in years past campaigners rushed to the fax machines during debates to send detailed candidate position statements and rebuttals to pools of journalists, the two sites offered direct feeds to voters in 2004. The Bush team created an online tool that pushed such information in real time to Web sites and Web logs, or blogs, that signed up for the news, while the Kerry campaign offered a similar service that provided e-mail responses to interested parties.

According to John Tedesco, an associate professor of communications at Virginia Tech and the author of "Changing the Channel: Use of the Internet for communicating about politics," the debate feeds are evidence of how online campaigns are circumventing traditional sources of campaign information, such as television or print news, a trend he expects to grow in future elections.

"In past elections, the candidates appealed to people to go to the Web sites, as did the media, but by and large people are now already aware of the sites' existence, and they're visiting them on their own," Tedesco said. "That is the biggest difference from years past--wider access and the shift in the number of people using (the candidate sites) as a primary source of information."

Tedesco says that in the future candidates will try to drive voters to their sites as a substitute for other forms of news media, which he sees the public increasingly labeling as biased. By encouraging people to get their news straight from their candidates, he contends, the Web will become an even more powerful campaign tool.

"In the past, we were relying more on investigative reporters doing independent fact-checks on candidates' claims, and even now we're relying more on the campaigns to provide that info," Tedesco said. "What that does, and will do even more in the future, is draw the campaigns even closer to the supporters. That's the power of the Web in today's politics."

The Dean technique
Despite the fact that the former Vermont governor's presidential campaign fizzled in the Democratic Party's Iowa primaries, there is no doubt that Dean's impact on the way political candidates harness the power of the Web will persevere. From using the Internet as an effective way to collect campaign contributions to fostering interaction among supporters, the Dean campaign made one fact abundantly clear: The Internet is the killer application for generating grassroots political interest.

"The Internet has been extremely successful at connecting (political campaigns) with the public."

--Josh Ross
the Kerry campaign's
director of Internet strategy

Online-campaign managers for both candidates agree that the biggest leap forward in the 2004 race is the use of campaign Web sites to communicate directly with the public. Whereas in the past, candidate sites largely served as libraries of information already available through the offline campaigns, this year the emphasis has been placed squarely on interactivity.

"We believe that there is no one better than our grassroots supporters to spread the president's message," DeFeo said. "The Internet has

Factually incaccurate story

Nice, another piece of c|net liberal bias that I now must publicly flog. The author of this article asserts that the Bush site is "Anti-Kerry" while Kerry is "more positive".

That is complete rubbish. A cursory analysis of the sites reveals that Bush is focusing quite directly on his own record. Here are Bush's current "LATEST HEADLINES" which dominate the site



? Bush: Clear Vision, Taking Action Key to Leadership
? What They're Saying: OH Newspapers Endorsing Bush
? Pres. Touts Nat'l Security Record of Reform & Results
? The Economy Line: State Unemployment Rates Fall
? Mrs. Bush: Pres. Said He'd Reduce Taxes, He Did
? Letter by Olympians and Professional Athletes for Bush

What do you have to say for yourself, Mr. Negative? I'm sure the c|net censors will sweep in to delete my post, but I am keeping it backed up in a TXT file to repost as necessary.

[Stan Kee]

c-net...1 pt.

C-Net is right. Bush's home page focuses more on Kerry than Kerry's homepage focuses on Bush. But this is a small issue to get worked up about. Who cares.
If one candidate has issues that he wishes to point out about the other candidate he should whether it's positive or negative.

Factually incaccurate story

Nice, another piece of c|net liberal bias that I now must publicly flog. The author of this article asserts that the Bush site is "Anti-Kerry" while Kerry is "more positive".

That is complete rubbish. A cursory analysis of the sites reveals that Bush is focusing quite directly on his own record. Here are Bush's current "LATEST HEADLINES" which dominate the site



? Bush: Clear Vision, Taking Action Key to Leadership
? What They're Saying: OH Newspapers Endorsing Bush
? Pres. Touts Nat'l Security Record of Reform & Results
? The Economy Line: State Unemployment Rates Fall
? Mrs. Bush: Pres. Said He'd Reduce Taxes, He Did
? Letter by Olympians and Professional Athletes for Bush

What do you have to say for yourself, Mr. Negative? I'm sure the c|net censors will sweep in to delete my post, but I am keeping it backed up in a TXT file to repost as necessary.

[Stan Kee]

c-net...1 pt.

C-Net is right. Bush's home page focuses more on Kerry than Kerry's homepage focuses on Bush. But this is a small issue to get worked up about. Who cares.
If one candidate has issues that he wishes to point out about the other candidate he should whether it's positive or negative.

[Razzl]

Neither party really gets it yet

The strategists for the 2 parties and the candidates have not understood yet the importance of figuring out how their information fits into the information landscape of the people they are trying to reach. From my end-user perspective the campaign began in Spring of 2003 when from out of the blue I received an email from an organization I had never heard of before, Moveon.org, offering a way to challenge Bushes' drive to war. I immediately went to their web site to make donations, but after that sat back and let their emails come to me. Their web site was nowhere near as important as their brilliant email campaign.
A long time later emails began to arrive from the Dean campaign, then from the Kerry campaign, then from the Democratic National Committee. The DNC emails were especially lame at first, written in all the condescending jargon those people think in. The Kerry and DNC emails have gotten much savvier over time, but it's still a mystery why they think they both have to send redundant messages to the same address--can't they coordinate? I know they can't coordinate with Moveon.org by law, but the people at Moveon.org have been smart enough to run their own campaign. The Kerry and DNC web sites don't mean anything when I get the email, so the email is what matters most. It's like getting a newspaper geared to your interests when it's done well (Moveon.org) and like spam when it's done badly (DNC). I'm also tolerating email from ACTNOW.org, but I'm not sure why these guys don't just join Moveon.org to put on a unified face.
The worst part of the campaigns has been the automated telephone calling. I've been getting harassed with ugly negative phone messages from candidates, committees, and labor unions--if I've donated money why do you think I'm so shaky you have to call me? Can't you concentrate on the unaffiliated voters in the Union? And hasn't anyone in DNC figured out that HAVING THE CANDIDATE SPEAK THE RECORDED MESSAGE would be the most outstanding way to reach people?
The parties have a long way to go to figure out how to use the internet well--you can't just sit back and wait for people to find your web site. Whatever the outcome of the election Moveon.org has already swept the Clinton moderates out of control of the Democratic Party. For the foreseeable future their web-savvy methods and tactics will ensure that the DNC must dance to their tune if they hope to raise money and supporters.

[Razzl]

Neither party really gets it yet

The strategists for the 2 parties and the candidates have not understood yet the importance of figuring out how their information fits into the information landscape of the people they are trying to reach. From my end-user perspective the campaign began in Spring of 2003 when from out of the blue I received an email from an organization I had never heard of before, Moveon.org, offering a way to challenge Bushes' drive to war. I immediately went to their web site to make donations, but after that sat back and let their emails come to me. Their web site was nowhere near as important as their brilliant email campaign.
A long time later emails began to arrive from the Dean campaign, then from the Kerry campaign, then from the Democratic National Committee. The DNC emails were especially lame at first, written in all the condescending jargon those people think in. The Kerry and DNC emails have gotten much savvier over time, but it's still a mystery why they think they both have to send redundant messages to the same address--can't they coordinate? I know they can't coordinate with Moveon.org by law, but the people at Moveon.org have been smart enough to run their own campaign. The Kerry and DNC web sites don't mean anything when I get the email, so the email is what matters most. It's like getting a newspaper geared to your interests when it's done well (Moveon.org) and like spam when it's done badly (DNC). I'm also tolerating email from ACTNOW.org, but I'm not sure why these guys don't just join Moveon.org to put on a unified face.
The worst part of the campaigns has been the automated telephone calling. I've been getting harassed with ugly negative phone messages from candidates, committees, and labor unions--if I've donated money why do you think I'm so shaky you have to call me? Can't you concentrate on the unaffiliated voters in the Union? And hasn't anyone in DNC figured out that HAVING THE CANDIDATE SPEAK THE RECORDED MESSAGE would be the most outstanding way to reach people?
The parties have a long way to go to figure out how to use the internet well--you can't just sit back and wait for people to find your web site. Whatever the outcome of the election Moveon.org has already swept the Clinton moderates out of control of the Democratic Party. For the foreseeable future their web-savvy methods and tactics will ensure that the DNC must dance to their tune if they hope to raise money and supporters.