This week marked the first time that candidates were competing head to head with TV ads for the Iowa Caucuses, as John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and Chris Dodd all announced ad buys on local networks and cable. The Edwards and Richardson ads are so unique, that one might call the more boilerplate Dodd ad ‘distinctively normal.’
The first two of the three, from Edwards and Richardson, were not what one might call standard TV ads. In Edwards’s 30-second spot, the first 27 seconds feature “everyday-looking” Iowans finishing each others’ sentences about what Congress should do to end the war (the answer is support Edwards’s call to send the same bill that Bush vetoed back to his desk unchanged). The Senator does not come onto the screen until the mandatory “I’m John Edwards, and I approved this message” tag at the end. It is clearly intended to portray the sense that Edwards’s campaign is more about its supporters than its principal, and it drew quite a bit of notice from media when it was first announced.
In Richardson’s two 30-second spots (one is airing currently, the other is sitting in the can to be aired later), the Governor sits at a desk while a middle management-type interviews him for a job. The tone is something akin to the film Office Space, as the interviewer begins by rattling off impressive facts from Richardson’s resume and ends the second ad by saying, “For what we’re looking for, you might be a little overqualified.” Most people will think the ad is funny, but they won’t realize why: it is because, from Richardson’s point of view, the public is behaving like the caricature of the middle manager, ignoring his resume as if experience weren’t important. The ads are intended to change minds with humor, and the media has been buzzing about them ever since they launched.
On Tuesday, Chris Dodd’s campaign released its new Iowa ad, and it provides a stark contrast to Richardson’s and Edwards’s ad in that it follows the fairly standard format of the candidate talking to a camera for 30 seconds. Although Dodd’s was not the first ad to go up, it is the first standard political ad of the campaign to hit the airwaves. In it, Dodd maintains a serious expression while explaining his support of the Reid-Feingold plan in the Senate. Next to Richardson’s informative-but-funny ad and Edwards’s community-oriented, borderline gimmicky ad, Dodd’s looks stately but uninspired.
Perhaps the Dodd camp has made the calculation that they aren’t going to win by trying to run the most inspiring (or inspired) campaign; they see their opening in wonkish policy plans and sober assessments of reality. I couldn’t get them to reveal this entire campaign strategy to me, but I did ask Dodd’s Iowa Press Secretary, Taylor West, about the distinctive seriousness of the new ad. “There can be no more serious issue confronting the nation than how we bring this war to a responsible close,” she began. “[Dodd’s] campaign and his ads reflect his understanding that at a time when the stakes have never been higher for the country, we need proven, bold leadership.”
All this isn’t to say that Senator Dodd does not have a sense of humor, because he does have at least one joke that we know of that he tells regularly on the campaign trail. Still, Dodd’s new web site has launched, and it promises to make full use of all the latest Web 2.0 crazes that often impress netroots activists. Perhaps what we are seeing now is the beginning of Dodd’s repositioning himself to appeal more to policy wonks, technocrats, and bloggers, and this experiment might just work.
Video of all three candidates’ ads is below:
Edwards ad:
Richardson ads (the first is airing now; the one that plays after it in the clip below is likely to air later on):
There is an issue in the news right now that is of greatest interest to Iowans. I’m not taking about frontloading the primary schedule, but rather the exponentially increasing role of the internet in campaigns. While it remains to be seen what impact it will have had when this process culminates on January 14, 2008, we have already seen the effect it can have for a candidate. Many have credited YouTube for handing Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) and the Democrats the senate majority, thanks to a video featuring now former Senator George Allen calling a Webb staffer a “macaca.” Facebook and MySpace have also thrown their names into the political arena. While this may get many more people involved in the caucuses, it is increasingly difficult for the rest of us to process such a large volume of information and take the time to make sense of it for ourselves.
A prime example of this is a video entitled “Vote Different.” Posted on YouTube two weeks ago, it has been viewed over 919,000 times. It is a testament to the power of such ad campaigns on the internet. If you haven’t seen it, watch it for yourself.
Upon first glance, you should notice a few things. First is that it is a clever mashup of the famous 1984 Super Bowl ad introducing Apple Macintosh to the computer world. Secondly, it appears to be obvious that it is from the Obama campaign. This is a view that many major sources of news media have advanced. It’s a fair statement. The woman with the hammer has the symbol of Obama’s campaign on her shirt, and at the end of the ad is Obama’s web address.
But something just doesn’t seem right. Why would that particular sound bite be chose? There must be something that gets their message across more efficiently. They show Hillary’s explicit attempt to come across as a regular person, having a “conversation” with each of us individually. Now watch the original. The Macintosh ad speaks of “one people, one will, one resolve, one cause,” and “a garden of pure ideology where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests of any contradictory thoughts,” all coming from a voice that is meant to sound evil. It completely contradicts with Hillary’s explicit statement that “we all need to be part of the discussion,” and “I don’t want people who agree with me.” Themes such as unity, and “one people” are actually coming from the Obama campaign. Also notice the change in contrast between the two, as Hillary is bright white, as opposed to the dark room. The image of the “big brother” is dark, and blends with the dark wall, with a lighter room.
Now consider that the video was posted by someone with the username “ParkRidge47.” It is significant in that Senator Clinton was born in Park Ridge in 1947. It was also posted with the text: “Make up your own mind. Decide for yourself who should be our next president,” very much in line with the Hillary sound bite. So let’s say this actually is from the Clinton campaign. Could the message be that she is trying to create an exchange of ideas to make everyone better off, thus distancing herself from the image of politics that she is associated (i.e. a war of the partisans or even a politics as a competitive sport in which the American people are spectators)?
In the original commercial, the power comes from the irony of the hammer hitting the screen just as the “big brother” says “we will prevail.” In the mashup, the hammer hits Hillary as she says “I want to keep this conversation going until November, 2008.” Also notice that the woman with the Obama symbol is now wearing an ipod, symbolizing that she refuses to take part in Hillary’s conversation, and is then actually stops it suggesting that Obama is the one who wants to end her conversation. As for the reason why 2008 won’t be like “1984,” that is the year that Walter Mondale, running as an unabashed liberal, lost forty-nine of the fifty states in the general election. This suggests that having Hillary on the Democratic ticket would result in a different outcome this time around. This message is made clearer by having Obama associated with the black screen, while Hillary is associated with white.
Both sides have denied responsibility for the mashup, and I personally don’t subscribe to either view. We just don’t know, and can’t say for sure where this ad came from. My point is that not everything will be as it appears this campaign season. We must all take a closer look at everything we see and form our own opinions. It’s not an easy job, but it is our responsibility to do so.
It’s been an exciting time for third tier Republican candidates. Duncan Hunter officially declared his candidacy for President today. Hunter doesn’t have much money, name recognition or support but he does have Chuck Yeager’s endorsement for his quixotic quest for the Presidency. Hunter and his rather Orwellianly monikered PAC, Peace Through Strength, are leading the fight on the most important issue facing our country today, the evilness of China (to be precise, Red China).
However, he’s not alone in the fight against China. Tom Tancredo recently introduced a bill “To require additional tariffs be imposed on products of any nonmarket economy country” until that country has a market economy. This bill not only helps protect Americans from the Chinese threat but also helps defend Americans from Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Cambodia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. It’s good to see that Tom Tancredo is not just interested in protecting America from illegal immigrants but is also committed to leading the fight against Albania as well.
Finally, it seems that one other Republican candidate, Michael Jesus Archangel (website here, blurb here) hasn’t yet visited Iowa, which is not the sign of a serious candidate. However, he hasn’t engaged in Albania bashing either so it’s too soon to tell
The Iowa Caucuses aren’t democratic. In fact, they are so undemocratic, they make the Electoral College seem like a triumph for those who believe in “one man, one vote.” Caucusgoers aren’t voting for Obama, or Hillary or John Edwards. They vote for delegates to a county convention who then go on to vote for delegates to the State Convention who then go on to vote for delegates to the National Convention. Delegates are apportioned to each county and each precinct within the county by the combined number votes cast for the President and the Governor in the two previous General Elections. So, for example if more people in County X voted for the combination of John Kerry and Chet Culver in 2004 and 2006 than voted for the combination of Al Gore and Tom Vilsack in 2000 and 2002, County X will get more representation than it did in the 2004 caucuses. If less people voted for the top of the ticket, County X will get less representation. There are 3000 delegates at the State Convention and each county gets an appropriate share and the results for the caucuses are computed by factoring approximately what percent of the delegates a candidate will get at the State Convention. (Here are the 2004 results for an example)
So what has changed since 2004? Well of the big five counties in Iowa (Polk, Linn, Scott, Black Hawk and Johnson), all but Polk have gained delegates. In fact, Johnson has shown the largest net gain of any county, going from 141 to 164 delegates. Linn also made a big leap from 228 to 242 delegates. Scott jumped from 161 to 170 and Black Hawk creeped up from 136 to 140. In contrast, Polk had a small dip of two delegates but still makes up nearly 15% of the total number of delegates with 428. The biggest leap in terms of perecentage was made by Jefferson County which is going from 13 to 18 delegates while the biggest fall in percentage was Ida County, which goes from 7 to a paltry 5 delegates. For us in Poweshiek County, we gained an extra delegate to go to 21. Statewide totals (which are rough because they haven’t been rounded) for 2008 are below the fold and the totals for 2004 can be found here.
Wal-Mart occupies a special place in the demonology of the American Left–and with good reason. Its business practices lead to the exploitation of workers both at home and overseas and it has paved its path to success on the destruction of countless American small businesses, most of which were located in small towns like Grinnell. These sins have been extensively catagoried by organizations like Wake Up WalMart.
However, Wal-Mart seems to be taking steps to remediate these issues. Most notably, the front page of the New York Times today has an article that describes how Wal-Mart is using its power as the largest store in the nation to encourage consumers to buy more energy-efficient light bulbs. Compared to a traditional incandescent light bulb, a compact flourescent light bulb “uses 75 percent less electricity, lasts 10 times longer, produces 450 pounds fewer greenhouse gases from power plants and saves consumers $30 over the life of each bulb. But it is eight times as expensive as a traditional bulb, gives off a harsher light and has a peculiar appearance.” This is part of an ongoing effort by Wal-Mart to become a better corporate citizen and address a lot of the criticism it’s received. In fact, its new chief lobbyist is a former official in the Clinton Adminstration.
So do these efforts mean Wal-Mart has changed its stripes? I don’t know but it does seem to have some interesting political ramifications. It puts John Edwards, who has taken an active part in the anti-Wal-Mart campaign as part of his attempt to reposition himself as the progressive candidate in 2008, in an interesting position. He’s now criticizing an environmental do-gooder. While Hillary Clinton, who was a member of Wal-Mart’s board until her husband ran for President, doesn’t have to run so far from her past involvement with the largest company in Arkansas. While no Democrat will embrace Wal-Mart (after all, with enemies like SEIU and the UFCW, you’re not going to have a lot of Democrats who want to be your friends), how they address the issue will be important. It’s the difference between a nuanced position that won’t alienate corporate contributors and an all-out attack that will be a bid for support from organized labor.
The question is whether by word or by deed, Wal-Mart will be successful at changing its stripes so that an attack on its corporate practices is merely doing the bidding of labor unions rather than defending working Americans. The success of Wal-Mart’s efforts may not just determine its corporate image but the image of Presidential candidates as well.
In the past couple days pretty much all anyone is talking about are the candidates’ reports filed yesterday on money raised and spent. The reports are available on the IECDB website.
If you want a good summary, see what Chris Woods over at Political Forecast has to say. He has a good post exclusively on the gubernatorial race, where Culver has out-fundraised Nussle by $200,000. It is certainly interesting to see who’s been donating, including a selection of presidential hopefuls.
Looking closer to home in Grinnell’s State House race in the last quarter (July 15-Oct 14)
Clearly it isn’t great news to see that Carroll has more money than Palmer at this point in the game, and Palmer certainly could’ve used the money from Warner’s PAC. However, I also know that Palmer has been working tirelessly on this campaign, and it seems impossible that someone could meet both the candidates and not come away with a better impression of Eric.
Tuesday, Danny Carroll is hosting a fundraiser in a private room on Grinnell College’s campus with John McCain. It’s no secret that McCain has run to the right (Exhibit A), but he has never quite been the hero everyone thinks he is (Exhibit B).
But for anyone who is still attached to the idea of John McCain the “straight-talker” (and the “straight talk” motif kind of outlives its purpose when the attribution is plastered all over his PAC web site, straighttalkamerica.com), know that the candidate he’s shilling for is very much not a straight talker. Here are some of the very un-straight claims Danny Carroll has made:
Grinnell College students should not have the right to vote for their state representative (in this 2004 mailing).
He was the reason why Newton — about 15 minutes away from his house district — got its new speedway and stadium (in the 2006 “Carroll Chronicle”, which Danny sent out in the newspaper in Oskaloosa and Grinnell).
John McCain became popular when he ran against George W. Bush, because he was the Republican everyone wanted to win the primary. Then Bush smeared him, and McCain fell into line. Now it’s McCain’s turn to be front-runner, and he won’t be outflanked (or out-Roved) by anyone this time. For a campaign based on “straight talk,” he seems to spend a little too much time raising money for people like Danny Carroll.
A reader has been pestering us to post about Leonard Boswell’s MySpace for a little while now. I saw that Ed Fallon also had one, so I thought it’d be a good time to post some thoughts about how campaigns use the internet.
I’ve thought for a while that most political campaigns — especially in Iowa — use at most about 10% of the Internet’s potential for connecting with voters and organizing supporters. This campaign season is better than past ones here, but still, I’ve signed up for most of the Iowa campaigns’ email lists, and I get fewer than one a week from all of them except for Nussle’s. (Some, I’ve never gotten any from, even though I’ve signed up on their web sites. So maybe there have been errors with signup, too?)
The IDP sends out emails pretty frequently, but this week I’ve gotten about six emails with exactly the same thing each time (about a Medicare Press Conference), and that’s just annoying.
MySpace is nice, but it isn’t going to connect a campaign with rural voters all that well. And emails are good, but they usually only work for people who have already pledged support, because no one else signs up on an email list.
What could be improved? For one, the web sites themselves could all stand to be a lot more usable. That means things like taking more advantage of whitespace, making site organization more logical, making content more readable, and making the design easier to look at for long periods of time.
But it also means more interactivity. Real blogs would be nice (I haven’t seen a single thing I’d call a “blog” on any Iowa sites, even though Fallon claims to have one). Also, the photo galleries should be updated more regularly, so that candidates can say “check my web site to see if your picture got taken today!” at all of their appearances. That’ll get people to the web sites and keep them thinking about candidates.
In general, it seems like the people at the top of campaigns often see web sites as much as a liability as a tool, and that’s not helpful. I’ve been offering my help around to some campaigns, though, so hopefully I’ll be able to help out a little bit with this stuff.
For the money, there’s no better marketing tool than the Internet. Someday, everyone will realize it.
When we (and other Iowa Blogs) posted a call to support Boswell in Barbara Boxer’s “Whom should we give money to?” poll, you responded. We were pretty sure Boswell would lose, since he was at second-to-last place, but then he jumped, and this weekend, he was declared the winner with 31% of the votes. I won’t claim that bloggers did it all, but we certainly made a difference, and that’s something we can all be proud of.
In general, Iowa political blogs — in particular, progressive Iowa blogs — seem to have improved significantly since I started watching them closely in January. I think all of us have seen our traffic increase, and that has kept us interested in it. In particular, I’ve seen Iowa Progress’s traffic go from 0 (we were only founded in March) to over 1,000 visits per week. Most surprising, perhaps, is the fact that we get a ton of our hits from outside Iowa. That means that people who are looking for places to send money are listening to us, and we’re filling a niche for them that may not have been filled before us.
It also means that potential presidential campaigns are listening to what we have to say. And that much is clear from the interviews that Drew (Feingold, Warner) and the folks at Political Forecast (Warner) have done with potential candidates. I’ve complained about the quality of the interviews in the past, but I still think that they’re interesting and that they set an important precedent for 2008 that candidates can’t afford to ignore us.
But unfortunately, today Drew announced that he won’t be blogging at DrewMiller.net for the next several months. This is a blow to our blogosphere in Iowa, but it won’t be fatal. We have a void to fill, and I know all of us bloggers are going to try our best to fill it.
When we contacted the three campaigns about conducting these interviews, the Fallon campaign was the first to respond. And they forwarded our questions on to not one, but three staffers: Volunteer Coordinator Rob Sand, Canvass Director Christina Jens, and Grassroots Organizer Adam Mason. And, while it made my job editing and compiling a little more complicated, I’m not complaining, because this interview, like the others, provides some pretty interesting reading.
IowaProgress: How did you get involved in politics?
Rob Sand: I was much more active with skateboarding at the beginning of high school than anything in politics beyond reading the newspaper. I didn’t feel like I could have much of an impact.
After my friends and I kept getting kicked out of skate spots, though, I got pissed and decided to start a campaign to get Decorah (my hometown) to build a public skatepark. It took nearly 2 years, and by the time the concrete was poured I had quit skating (too busy with the project), graduated high school, and left town. But the project taught me that one person can make a difference- I don’t think its cool for many in our cynical generation to think that, but I do. The skatepark made politics/public affairs my passion, and that’s why I’m working for Ed.
Christina Jens: My family’s always been politically aware. It was a common topic of conversation at the dinner table growing up. I fell into organizing in my last year of college. I unintentionally found myself heading up one of the student organizations at Iowa State, and the following summer also fell into a job canvassing with the State PIRGs. Much to my simultaneous joy and dismay, I discovered that I loved it.
Adam Mason: Studied Political Science, had early goals of being Diplomat, Foreign service ambitions. Became disenchanted with the system. Worked odd jobs from retail management to construction to janitor to hotel mgmt. Always found myself staying up to date on issues, world politics especially, Dc politics… Started reading about this Ed Fallon Guy in early 2005, liked wht he was saying, and started volunteering. A position to Organize came open in the Summer of 2005, and although I had no official political experience, was brought on and have been learning it, loving it, and hopefully accomplishing it.
IP: What do you do in off years when there aren’t elections? (Or what did you do before you joined this campaign?)
RS: I graduated college in December, took a graduation celebration vacation in January, and started here in February. Most folks I know switch between policy and campaign work depending on the year, or do consulting for other campaigns (school board, bond issues, voter referendum). Also, there’s always organizing for next year!
CJ: I spent 5 years canvassing and directing canvass operations for non-profit organizations around the country. I decided to come back to Iowa a year and half ago and worked providing technical support for customers of a local ISP. At the beginning of the year I decided I needed to get back in to organizing, and volunteered on a local school referendum campaign, and worked a couple temp jobs before joining the Fallon for Governor staff. After this election season, I plan to stay active in politics; the capacity is yet to be determined.
AM: See above, but also: As this is my first campaign, I hope to be involved with an Ed Fallon administration. 2008 Presidential Candidates will probably be beginning soon after this November’s elections- as much as I hate to think about it. (So much talk about them already) and I would love an opportunity to continue working for Candidates I believe in (Russ Feingold) I would also consider the not-for-profit arena as a way to work along issue lines to continue helping people. (Social Justice, Clean Elections, Living Wage…)
IP: In this gubernatorial election, the candidates are using the internet a lot more than they did last time around. What role do you think the internet (both your campaign sites and online news outlets and blogs) will play in this election? In what ways has the internet changed Iowa political campaigning?
RS: The internet far surpasses any other tool for organizing and communication. It allows campaigns to organize and communicate with supporters, and allow supporters to organize and communicate amongst themselves. I think the sense of ownership the web provides citizens over the campaign is unparalled as a tool for getting volunteers and supporters to get more and more involved, and its the work those supporters do that can make the difference.
I think blogs are journalism’s last best hope, outside of a president with the intestinal fortitude to break up the media monopolies. Corporate media ownership demands returns for shareholders and reporting the news takes second place to that. Tough, investigative journalism- the kind we really need- demands too many resources and gives small returns, so our media quality is suffering. You can find a lot of stories breaking on blogs today. Even though few people read them, reporters are among their readers. So those investigations by “citizen reporters” usually end up making the papers and shaping the media agenda.
I honestly think any candidate that ignores what is being said in the blogosphere and power of the web is a losing candidate.
AM: It is very interesting to watch conversations in online communities. They are more lasting than just a speech or conversation, and therefore have the potential to reach more voters, and influence/involve that many more opinions. We have also seen the rise of online fundraising in the last few election cycles. As PAC’s continue to hold successful online fund drive’s, we see that this is a tool not to underestimate. I am not sure that the internet is revolutionizing the Iowa political climate, as many of the state’s voters are those that are slowest to embrace technology. However, as technology becomes more integrated, I look for the internet’s role to evolve. That being said, for those that do embrace technology, we must try and offer a campaign site that is exciting, interactive, and accessible. It is also beneficial to monitor and participate in blogs to share ideas and information.
IP: What role do you think students (should) play in Iowa politics?
RS: Its a cliched Catch-22 that politicians don’t listen to young people because they don’t vote, and young people don’t vote because politicians don’t listen. The last place to look for the instigation of major change is elected officials, so I think its up to us. Our generation needs to get off our asses and demand that there be a better situation for ourselves as adults and for our kids when they come around. 15% of us are doing a damn fine job, but at some point we have to stop talking to ourselves and get out there to engage our politically disengaged peers- but without sounding holier-than-thou or preachy. Blogging helps, talking to friends helps, organizing helps more. Sorry to offer a lot of bland platitudes…
CJ: An active one.
AM: Students have a long history of doing the “grunt work” of campaigning. They are the quickest and most willing to jump at opportunities Canvassing, phone banking, and in general just volunteering. As well they should, the decisions that are being made now in statehouses and in Washington will affect them for many many years to come. By becoming informed and active, they help ensure spirited debate, active campaigns, and voter participation.
IP: Iowa has a mix of urban voters and rural voters. Is it difficult to account for both groups in crafting your message?
RS, CJ, AM: It may be for some candidates. Ed Fallon has a common sense message that appeals to voters from all backgrounds. While he’s from Des Moines, he’s also served on the Agriculture Committee and is familiar with issues that affect all Iowans.
IP: (Specific for Fallon campaign) Your campaign has refused to take money from PACs (and has refused some other traditional forms of political contributions). Some have predicted that Nussle will have a record amount of cash for the general election. How will you deal with that inequality if yours is the campaign that wins the primary?
RS, CJ, AM: Ed Fallon has a long history of winning campaigns where he’s been outspent. We will address the issue through continuing to build our grassroots support and talking about the need to address the way that political campaigns are financed. We’re the only campaign that can provide a clear contrast to Nussle in this regard.
IP: Why is your campaign the best suited to beat Nussle?
RS, CJ, AM: We provide the clearest contrast to Nussle. Ed Fallon will continue to advocate for responsible land use, ensuring that all Iowans have access to healthcare, adequately funding out education system, and ensuring that our state’s government is accountable to Iowans, not to corporate sponsors.
IP: Do you have a funny anecdote you’d like to share? Or anything else to add?
RS: Anyone who’s ever canvassed for a job can tell you unbelievable stories. My favorite is the Balitmore, MD senior citizen who stepped out from him front door after I knocked on it and offered a fight with, “Just try me, boy!” while his wife chided him from inside. The 80-year-old man who answered in just bikini briefs was interesting too; I held my clipboard in the perfect position to block… things. Canvass: its the best job you’ll ever have.
