The 2008 primaries have already begun - online.
Barack Obama was first out of the gate, announcing his candidacy in a video placed on the web. Hillary Clinton responded with her own video yesterday. Andy Plesser handicaps the technology behind the two videos, and gives Obama winning marks for allowing his video to be shared, linked, and cross posted. I'd agree with Andy's evaluation on all points - and you should read his examination to get the whole story.
So let's instead look at the Substance, and Style of the two videos for a clue about how the candidates will fare in the web video world.
Both Clinton and Obama have chosen nondescript locations for their announcements, but Hillary's seems like it might be her home in Chappaqua - with trees out a window over her shoulder. Both have chosen to use a film style that includes overly stylized lighting... kind of like the fake window blinds that news magazines project on the wall behind interview subjects. Neither of their video's feel 'off the cuff' or 'natural' in their film style.
But this is where the similarities end.
Simply put - Obama's words feel like his own. Both convincing and colloquial. Direct and spoken without any sense that he's being asked to read 'copy'. His delivery is authentic. In stark contrast, Hillary is struggling with words that are not her own. You can practically see the tele-prompter reflected in her eyes. Every word has been word smithed, every phrase looked at by a team of consultants. Even the subject line of the email - "I'm in. And I'm in to win"- seems to respond to some unspoken marketing concern about her candidacy. Clinton's video is directed to look 'casual' , with the camera panning gently back and forth (like those old Maxwell House commercials). In contrast - Obama's spot doesn't attempt any false causal film effects... counting instead on his ability to deliver his message direct to camera. Don't get me wrong, there a moments were Clinton is clearly speaking her mind, when she says with a bit of exasperation - "after Six Years of George Bush...it is time to renew the promise of America." But when she then says - "Let's talk, lets chat..." you can just see the speech writers trying to find a way to soften her with the word 'chat'. Please. Hillary Clinton doesn't 'chat' - and it's not credible coming out of her mouth. "Because the conversation in Washington has been a little one sided - don't 'ca think." I do, but I don't by Hillary talking in slang. Obama instead is almost flat - straight - not overselling or over-promising. Just laying out his plans, with a frankness that's refreshing.
Neither video says much about what the candidates will do, or even what issues they'll run on. The only exception being Iraq. Obama characterizes Iraq as "a tragic and costly war that should never have been waged" while Hillary says: "let's talk about how to bring the right end to the war in Iraq".
As the campaign heats up, it's clear that 2008 is going to require a new and agile use of video on the web. The speed of communication, the need for responsive and authentic communication, and at the same time the ability for people to keep close track of the candidates comments - with an ear for shifts in position or an unwillingness to respond to issues in a direct way - will shape both candidates and campaigns.
2004 was the year that grass roots fund raising came to the web.
2008 will be the election that is won by the candidate that embraces the emerging open-source media environment that the web provides.
This is new territory. It's an important evolution. And it will redefine how politicians communicate and interact with voters.
Round one goes to Obama.