In The Washington Post this morning --
- According to Chris Cillizza and Dan Balz, "the already-underway 2008 presidential campaign is likely to be remembered as the point where Web video became central to the communications strategy of every serious presidential candidate." Campaign staff keep talking about getting people to watch the videos. Why don't they talk about the importance of getting people to share the video? John Edwards was the only one of the candidates who suggested doing so in his announcement video, but his web strategist, Matt Gross (who worked on the Dean campaign), said that their "goal was to have people go and watch that video". Come on, folks, the real power of viral video is the chance to empower others to evangelize on your behalf. My fantasy? YouTube -- and the other viral sites -- develop the capacity to provide quantifiable measurement of 1) the number of times a video is viewed by a supporter versus someone who is watching to blog about it or write about it for the mainstream media; 2) the number of times the video is embedded in a blog, demonstrating a deeper level of engagement; the number of times a link from the video is forwarded, and how many of those people forward the link as well.
- In their coverage of Senator Clinton's first public appearance since her announcement this weekend, the Post suggests that Clinton chose to visit a Manhattan community clinic -- posing with cute kids -- because she "would like to strengthen her appeal to women". Is no one paying attention? It's SINGLE women voters who are the group to appeal to in 2008 and OUR top issue, according to the polls, is the war in Iraq. Cut out the condescension. Women are interested in more than issues related to the family, particularly those who have chosen not to have one.
- On page A6, the Post announces the launch of their new political web site — one day before the launch of The Politico, which managed to steal away some of their top talent. A sign of desperation? I'm not sure they have anything to worry about.