YouTube and the Death of Pandering

Sorry for the radio silence on the blog ... life is the biggest enemy of the writer in some cases.

In any event, this TPM piece on Bill Clinton is a must read. The big takeaway is that in the decade plus since Clinton last campaigned for president, things have changed:

"He's obviously got the same shrewdness and political canniness on many levels. But again and again through this cycle, in little ways and big, he's shown he's not quite in sync with this political era, doesn't quite grasp the new mechanics -- both the ideological texture and the nuts and bolts of the networked news cycle."

Now, juxtapose that analysis with this recent interview with Mark Penn from The Guardian. The whole interview is fascinating, even though he's mostly marketing his book on micro-targeting. Here's the money quote from the piece:

"Thus it was that Bill Clinton's successful 1996 election strategy, overseen by Penn, targeted "soccer moms", a label he coined. And thus it was, Penn's critics argue, that for too long Hillary's campaign was a muddle of small, contradictory, cautious messages, when what the moment required was passion, inspiration, and a promise of change."

Some folks would criticize the use of small, targeted, sometimes mutually exclusive messages. In the best cases, it's merely "knowing your audience." In the worst cases, it's pandering. Bill Clinton campaigned in a world wherein it was nearly impossible for anyone but the most embedded insider to have a meaningful interaction with those contradictions. Fast forward to 2008, and we have a hugely prevalent 24 news cycle, a hyperactive blogosphere, The Daily Show, and a seemingly bottomless trough of online streaming videos.

In short, "gotcha" can now be played passively.

-Education Dude