Skip to main content

Well, not quite, but you get my drift.  The new survey from Pew released late yesterday (see my previous post) showed that more than half of all adults in the U.S. used the Web during the 2008 race for the White House for "political purposes," from just checking for news to sharing videos or Facebook postings. It also revealed that Obama backers used the Web far -- far --  more extensively than McCain's fans, for everything from meeting up to donating money.

These are not exactly shocking and they not really do justice to the full impact of the Web in Obama's victory last year.  

Yes, Obama likely would have defeated McCain without the fall Web push -- but, in my view, he would have never gotten past Clinton without it in the many months before that.

When the nearly two-year race for the White House ended on November 4, 2008, the solid win for Obama no longer seemed a surprise. Going back one year, however -- and finding Hillary Clinton labeled the clear frontrunner -- puts the Obama victory in perspective. Joe Scarborough wasn't the only pundit back then to pat Obama on the head for a nice effort and tell him to prepare to get ground up and "spit out" by the unstoppable double-Clinton machine. Instead, Obama, with the help of an unprecedented grassroots funding and organizing effort, battled that machine to a standstill, then knocked out McCain a few months later.

How did that happen? The Democratic insurgent made few poor moves, remained calm while avoiding, or wiping off, the mud thrown at him, and continually surprised the pundits, who overestimated both Clinton and McCain (and Sarah Palin) past the point that most voters abandoned them.

Then there was the Web.

The nomination of an African-American for president by a major party, and the Republicans' first selection of a female candidate for vice-president, were not the only historic aspects of the 2008 election campaign in the United States. This was also the first national campaign profoundly shaped -- even, at times, dominated -- by the new media, from viral videos and blog rumors that went "mainstream" to startling online fundraising techniques. You might call it Campaign 2.008.

James Poniewozik, the Time magazine columnist, observed at mid-year that the old media are rapidly losing their "authority," and influence, with the mass market. "It's too simple to say that the new media are killing off the old media," he declared, while highlighting a pair of influential scoops for Huffington Post by a hitherto unknown "citizen journalist" named Mayhill Fowler. "What's happening instead is a kind of melding of roles. Old and new media are still symbiotic, but it's getting hard to tell who's the rhino and who's the tickbird." He concluded, with an oblique reference to the late Tim Russert: "Maybe we'll remember this election as the one when we stopped talking about 'the old media' and 'the new media' and, simply, met the press."

Simply put: The rules of the game have been changed forever -- by technology. It was more than the "YouTube Election," as some dubbed it, or "The Facebook Election," or "hyper-politics." James Rainey, the longtime media reporter for the Los Angeles Times, declared that there is a "new-media revolution that is remaking presidential campaigns. Online videos can dominate the evening news. Or an unpublished novelist 'with absolutely no journalism training' can alter the national debate," a reference to Mayhill Fowler.

"What's different this year is that the entire political and media establishment has finally woken up to the fact that the internet is now a major player in the world of politics and our democracy," said Andrew Rasiej, co-founder of the TechPresident blog and annual Personal Democracy Forum. "We are watching a conversion of our politics from the 20th century to the 21st."

How did sites with names like DailyKos and FiveThirtyEight and Eschaton and Crooks and Liars collectively come to rival the three television networks in influence, even if partly by influencing the networks themselves? It's been more than thirty-five years since "The Boys on the Bus" were anointed and celebrated. Now Huffington Post's "Off the Bus" site often made headlines with on-the-scene bulletins and audio/video snippets from some 3000 contributors. It was there that Mayhill Fowler's two major scoops in the campaign were posted.

Defending her second one -- on Bill Clinton's "sleazy" attack on Todd Purdum of Vanity Fair captured along a rope line in South Dakota -- Jay Rosen, who runs that section of the Huff Post site, said, "Professional reporters are going to have to decide whether they want to view citizen journalists as unfair competition, which is one option, or as extending the news net to places that pro reporters can't, won't or don't go, which is another -- and I think a better -- way to look at it."

I would argue that videos featuring Bill, not Hillary, Clinton led to a true turning point in the primary race, when on three separate occasions he was caught making what some took to be "racial" remarks and/or losing his temper with voters or reporters -- all in informal settings captured by amateurs or small town reporters and then beamed to millions. Countless Democrats, and particularly African-Americans, who had always revered the Clintons, switched to Obama in the space of a week or two. Even if they still liked Hill they did not want another four or eight years of Bill. Obama won eleven primaries in a row and the race was all but over.

Early in the final Obama-McCain showdown, a leading campaign charge from the Democrats was that the Republican wanted to stay in Iraq "for 100 years." What was the source for this? An amateur video of McCain making a remark to that effect at a small campaign gathering months earlier, spread widely on the Web -- in the usual fashion, first by liberal bloggers, then by the Obama campaign itself. Soon it turned up frequently on network and cable TV shows and even in Democratic commercials.

Don't forget: Last autumn, the turning point for the entire campaign might have come when McCain's gamble, picking Sarah Palin as his running mate, was undermined by the CBS interview with her by Katie Couric and the Saturday Night Live parodies starring Tina Fey. Yes, they were generated in the mainstream but they gained tens of millions of additional viewers online in the days that followed.

Another key factor: After the TV pundits scored each of the four big debates about even, instant polling and Web commentary, nearly all giving the the Democrat the win, carried the day.

Today, old media still plays a strong role, of course, but even when it is at center stage, which is often, it now comes under withering review from the world of the Web -- and in turn, responds to those critiques, and the cycle goes on and on.

Yes, the networks and cable news outlets hosted almost all of the candidate debates, but this year they were joined by partners such as Facebook and YouTube. The YouTube debate provided some of the best, and goofiest, questions of the whole primary season (who can forget the query about global warming from a melting snowman).

As the final week of the campaign approached in October, Howard Kurtz ventured out on the campaign trail for a few days for The Washington Post and then asked: Have the Web and the digital age doomed the "boys on the bus? ...Does the campaign trail still matter much in an age of digital warfare? Or is it now a mere sideshow, meant to provide the media with pretty pictures of colorful crowds while the guts of the contest unfold elsewhere? And if so, are the boys (and girls) on the bus spinning their wheels?"

Then, on the morning of Election Day, the New York Times presented, as its banner headline on the front page, "The '08 Campaign: A Sea Change for Politics As We Know It." Adam Nagourney opened it with, "The 2008 race for the White House that comes to an end on Tuesday fundamentally upended the way presidential campaigns are fought in this country, a legacy that has almost been lost with all the attention being paid to the battle between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama.

"It has rewritten the rules on how to reach voters, raise money, organize supporters, manage the news media, track and mold public opinion, and wage -- and withstand -- political attacks, including many carried by blogs that did not exist four years ago."

So blogs, which rarely drew wide notice in 2004 and were derided by some as a silly, passing fancy, now earned a place in the second paragraph of the top Times story on Election Day 2008. "I think we'll be analyzing this election for years as a seminal, transformative race," said Mark McKinnon, a senior adviser to President Bush's campaigns in 2000 and 2004, in that Times article. "The year campaigns leveraged the Internet in ways never imagined. The year we went to warp speed. The year the paradigm got turned upside down and truly became bottom up instead of top down."

Terry Nelson, who was the political director of the Bush campaign in 2004, said that the evolution would continue in 2012 and beyond. "We are in the midst of a fundamental transformation of how campaigns are run," Nelson said. "And it's not over yet." As Sarah Palin might say: You betcha.
*
Much of the above is excerpted from my latest book, "Why Obama Won," reviewed here by SusanG two months ago.

Originally posted to GregMitch on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 05:56 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks, Greg, we did our best! n/t (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dallasdoc, frandor55, dougymi, cranquette

    "I believe that some fine day, the children of Abraham
    will lay down their swords forever in Jerusalem."

    by Ducktape on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 06:00:05 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for the free sample, Greg! (6+ / 0-)

    This sounds like an excellent analysis -- unsurprisingly.

    It's odd to think that something this fun may nevertheless be this important.

  •  Well, he owes it *mostly* to Al Rodgers (6+ / 0-)

    but he's to humble to take credit.

    But seriously, most of the elite BlogO'rite like that clown Jerome, Sirota, Stoller, Hamsher, Big Time Douchebag vociferously opposed Obama.

    It was the rank and file who defied their leaders.

  •  We were watching and observing (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gowrie Gal, 1BQ, cranquette

    more closely than the MSM.  Some of us understood exactly what it took for Obama to win the Iowa caucus - a kick ass organization.  And that Clinton's third place finish revealed all the weaknesses in her campaign operation.  Keen observers also saw what Clinton's team did to pull out a win in NH (the race card) and that playing with that sort of fire was high risk.  It was much easier to get away with that in '92 than in '08.

    What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

    by Marie on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 06:22:16 PM PDT

  •  Campaign 2.0.08 - I like it! There's no (0+ / 0-)

    doubt that the availability of content - both informational and entertaining - on the Web made it so much easier to get involved.

    For my part, I went on a bit of a debunking crusade, refuting republican lies and talking points to my friends and family by e-mailing news articles and blog posts - the line between the two got confusingly thin at times - in a personal attempt to disseminate facts as widely as I could.

    It's encouraging that the Obama Administration continues its use of the Internet to further its online presence. It's the best way to reach young people, many of whom don't read a paper, watch TV, or have a landline, and these citizens have far fewer prejudices than earlier generations.

    I remember the night that Bill Clinton was inaugurated and thinking, "Finally, it's my generation's turn!" Well, it didn't turn out quite the way I'd hoped and much of the good the Clinton Administration did was undone - and worse - by his successor. When John McCain became the republican nominee, I thought, "Oh boy, here we go, back in time. They'll never let a boomer near the Oval Office again!" The fact that we've skipped (for now) the rest of the boomers is fine with me, as long as we don't return to the age of the dinosaurs!

    I'm glad we have a President whose outlook is primarily forward-looking, even if I disagree with burying criminal acts in the past. I'm glad that we have a biracial President whose status as POTUS challenges the old perception that only "old white guys" can get elected to the highest office of the land. And while I'm a minority myself, I'm glad that he's neither white nor a minority, but both.

    Great excerpt, Greg!

    The Tyranny of the Minority - when did 60 become the new 51?

    by 1BQ on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 06:41:01 PM PDT

  •  Nah, he owes the preponderance (0+ / 0-)

    to Wall Street, and he's proving it every day.

    Why are we on this side so much like the other side when it comes to tribe loyalty? Nada Lemming

    by Matthew Detroit on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 07:26:03 PM PDT

  •  Why is it, really, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    papicek

    that progressives were seemingly so much more able to take advantage of the Web than were conservatives?

    •  an excellent question... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rhutcheson

      and someday, it'll fill a small library of academic theses. As we've seen recently (in the Chas Freeman episode), it's not that the right doesn't use the net, but they're using it differently - email vs blogs - and when they have a specific target, all too effectively.

      Chas Freeman left enough controversial material out there to give AIPAC enough of exactly the same sort of information kossacks et al used to torpedo many wingnut talking points.

      The right will work the net much better next time, and the left needs to take care not to overreach.

      "The cure for bullshit is fieldwork."
      --Robert Bates, Department of Government; Harvard University

      by papicek on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 07:59:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  does this imply... (0+ / 0-)

    that the net got him to the White House? Or simply that all this net activity was a reflection of both a bias in the generational/economic/educational demographics of Obama v McCain supporters and the enthusiasm for avoiding a 3rd Bush term?

    Let's not go overboard, now. And by all means, let us avoid groupthink.

    "The cure for bullshit is fieldwork."
    --Robert Bates, Department of Government; Harvard University

    by papicek on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 07:48:50 AM PDT

Click here for the mobile view of the site