website statistics

Archive for the 'Rudy Giuliani' Category

John Edwards Was Born to Run

Here’s an e-mail from the John Edwards campaign sent Tuesday morning:

John Edwards’ last e-mail pitch

And here is what AP is reporting within the last hour:

Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voters’ sympathies but never diverted his campaign, The Associated Press has learned.

The two-time White House candidate notified a close circle of senior advisers that he planned to make the announcement at a 1 p.m. EST event in New Orleans that had been billed as a speech on poverty, according to two of his advisers. The decision came after Edwards lost the four states to hold nominating contests so far to rivals who stole the spotlight from the beginning—Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

The fundraising pitch bothered me plenty yesterday. Edwards presented himself throughout this campaign, as he did to some extent in 2003, as the populist reformer who would fight the big corporations on behalf of the little guy, whom only he represented. It’s not the kind of candidacy that attracts my interest, but it certainly has its place in Democratic politics.

That is, until several rounds of voting demonstrate that one does not in fact represent very many people. And yet here he was, the week following yet another epic fail, asking those same “little people” to throw their good, hard-earned money after his bad, weakening campaign. Today, he’s finally doing the right thing. But it bothers me even more that he was still trying to raise money less than 24 hours before throwing in the towel.

So why today? It is perhaps a clever partisan move to drop out on the same day Rudy Giuliani is withdrawing to back John McCain, and I respect the gamesmanship. But it also reminds me of Saturday evening, when his non-concession speech all but cut off Obama’s actual South Carolina victory speech. That’s John Edwards for you — a narcissist. So are most politicians, but he’s among the worst: He’s a narcissist who says he’s doing it all for you.

I Am a Stephen Colbert Expert (And So Can You!)

So I’m quoted in the Yeas and Nays column of today’s Washington Examiner, commenting on the blogospheric reaction to Stephen Colbert’s presidential campaign announcement… or should I say “campaign” announcement. Here was my takeaway:

“Blogs are attracted to shiny objects, and Colbert is nothing if not a shiny object,” Beutler said. “Even serious-minded bloggers can’t resist.”

I wish I had said “bloggers are attracted,” considering that blogs themselves are inanimate objects (heck, they’re not even objects) and incapable of being attracted to things without the help of a blogger… but I think the point gets across. Meantime, kudos to Jeff Dufour and Patrick Gavin for running my specific numbers:

[A]fter Colbert announced Oct. 16, he was mentioned on 0.09 percent of all blog posts (not just political blogs). Hillary Clinton had the same level of mentions during the same period, and Rudy Giuliani was mentioned on 0.08 percent of blogs.

In terms of raw numbers, Beutler said, “In the three-day period surrounding his announcement (day of, morning after, and one more day) 748 different blog posts mentioned the phrases ‘Stephen Colbert’ and ‘president.’ If you run the same search for ‘Hillary Clinton’ without ‘president’ — since we assume any post about her is also about her candidacy — we get 727 posts. [So] even though our search string for Hillary was less stringent he actually scored more mentions than she did.”

The figures above are probably more in-depth than the average reader of gossip columns can handle, but then again this is Washington, where even the gossip is a bit wonkish (Drew Carey visits Reason Magazine!).

But for the purposes of Blog P.I., it’s not quite enough. The numbers above actually come from two different sources — the percentages come from the Icerocket Trend Tool and the raw numbers from Google Blogsearch — so no mathematical formula should feature both numbers. Keeping in mind that all of these tools are flawed, it’s my belief that when they show the same pattern, you’re onto something. And this is it:

Stephen Colbert, Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani compared

Here are the Google figures for Colbert, Hillary and Rudy. And the figures for comparing Colbert’s announcement to the (more) legitimate candidates come from this February post.

I think that takes care of everything. What does this say about Colbert? Certainly, he is as relevant — and his satire as cutting — as when his late-night show spun off from Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” nearly two years ago. That’s pretty impressive, considering the essential gimmickiness of the program.

But will he remain as relevant past 2008, with President Bush out of office? That is, of course, assuming he doesn’t follow President Bush into office.

P.S. Not just the Facebook group that’s more popular than the Obama one that inspired it, but Stephen Colbert has more support (at least according to Rasmussen’s robots) than Ron Paul? Is Colbert Nation really fiercer than the “Google Ron Paul” set? I have my doubts, but the poll is amusing.

(FWIW: I’m with Fred.)

The Good, the Bad and the SEO

From yesterday’s techPresident Daily Digest:

OpenLeft’s Chris Bowers is back with an update on his latest Googlebombing campaign, this time directed at Rudy Giuliani. Bowers is claiming that because of his and other liberal bloggers’ efforts, two of his targets — an article claiming that Rudy is worse than Bush, and a letter from NYC firefighters to Hizzoner — are now among the top ten Google search results for “Rudy Giuliani.” Is this tactic a method of search-engine optimization (SEO) or gaming the system? William Beutler, who writes Blog P.I. and works for the Fred Thompson campaign, thinks it’s the latter. “It’s not making the pages better, it’s not doing the organic things that Google is supposed to do,” Beutler told the National Review.

Ironically, most of the links in the original didn’t work — if it had been a Google bomb, it would have been a dud. But I digress already. I do appreciate the shout-out, and it’s inspired me to comment on Google bombing and SEO in a little more depth than I could for National Review. And because Chris Bowers seems particularly aggrieved by the comments I made in that article, perhaps this will clarify things.

First and foremost, what Bowers calls “search engine optimization” isn’t, quite. A webmaster implements SEO techniques to make a page he controls rank prominently in search engines, primarily on industry-leading Google. If you’re doing it “white hat,” this means knowing what Google’s bots will and will not respond well to, and acting accordingly. This is not “gaming the system” — this is just playing the game. Bowers and his allies have no control over the pages they would like to see place higher in the rankings, so what they’re doing instead is optimizing the search engine for their pages, rather than their pages for the search engine. There’s no getting around the fact that this is “black hat” SEO. I don’t suppose Bowers particularly cares. His goal is to win elections, and if that makes him an unethical SEO, so be it.

From a technical standpoint, Google bombing is pretty much the same thing as link farming. All that differentiates them is the leftroots are farming with mules, while black hat professionals are using heavy machinery. Bowers still has to push the mules, while the pros merely start up the combines and turn them loose.

If Bowers & co. were in fact doing this with bots, it would be a clear case of fraud — if Google catches you using automated link farms, your site or page may be delisted entirely. But because they are doing it with crowds of like-minded individuals, the practice is technically legit. Bowers could argue, even compellingly, that their linking patterns are just as legitimate as any other. But the coordination is the difference. Google’s results are supposed to be the revealed preference of millions of unconnected individuals. Yet Bowers has replaced Larry and Sergei’s invisible hand with his own, pushing the mule along.

I’ll stop before I mix any more metaphors, but let me add, I blush at the idea of Google trying to “defuse” these “bombs.” Once Google gets into the business of deciding what is organic and what is not, they’ve got a) a Miller v. California dilemma on their hands, and b) too much work because of it. But I have no authority over search engine results, so I will say that I know this one when I see it: The practice of selecting a single critical story from all the coverage about a political candidate and linking it over and over and over to make it more prominent than it would be otherwise is far from organic.

As long as there remains a benefit (or perceived benefit) to Google bombing, amateur politicos will keep it in their toolbox. Unless Google sets up a Gmail account to collect bombing complaints, there’s no way to stop them from doing it. So, as I argued earlier in the year, the only way to counter negative Google bombing is with positive or reverse Google bombing.

P.S. The question still remains, how effective is Google bombing? Here are two quotes, one from the NR story, the other from a Bowers post. Here’s Drew Ryun, son of ex-Rep. Jim Ryun:

When a campaign goes wrong and a five-term incumbent loses, there are a whole lot of things that have gone wrong. So was the Google bombing the sole reason we lost? No. Was it a part of it? Yes, but how big a part I don’t know.

And here’s Bowers, in reply:

Hahahahahaha! Yeah, of course the Googlebomb campaign hurt Jim Ryan’s re-election chances.

Well, I already knew what Bowers thought. But the fact remains, nobody can really tell how influential the practice is. But per my comments in NR, I submit that if you can get a negative link in the top three results for a politician’s name, then you have an effective Google bomb. And you’ll know this one when you see it — because you’ll be guaranteed of actually seeing it.

Playing Hard to Get in Touch With

Sometime after I posted about my frustrations with Giuliani’s half-hearted Internet campaign, I realized the above headline is the one I should have used. Luckily, a friend and fellow web-watcher brought it to my attention that I’d missed one other example of the campaign’s mixed signals:

Rudy Giuliani MySpace account

The official Giuliani MySpace profile can be found on MySpace’s 2008-themed Impact Channel. But if you want to see the full Giuliani profile, you’ll have to send a request and wait until they get around to adding you.

Except here’s the catch: They won’t add you. I just sent a friend request a little while ago, but my friend first attempted some weeks ago. Still nothing. Not to mention, every other listed candidate is putting their MySpace page to use.

Only Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo seem to have decided against having a presence on MySpace (or just haven’t got around to it yet), and so they are not among the listed. [Update: Nope, they're here and here, respectively. Even if the Impact Channel rotates the featured candidates, it's still ridiculous they show all but two at any given time.]

Giuliani’s folks can’t seem to decide whether they’re going to use this medium or not. And maybe I’m stretching the analogy too far, but isn’t equivocation what got Rudy in trouble in that first debate?

Playing Hard to Get

As I wrote a couple months ago, I quite like the Rudy Giuliani campaign websiteit’s much better than, say, the John McCain official site. In particular, they got a couple things very right about providing tools for supporters. However, two other aspects of the web operation have been bothering me.

First, and most importantly, I can’t seem to get on their e-mail list. When you visit their site, the first thing you’ll usually see is a splash page. This doesn’t thrill me, but I can accept its utility for… yes, building an e-mail list. But I have filled this form out at least three times in recent weeks, to no avail:

Rudy Giuliani e-mail sign-up form

I have tried signing up from different computers in different locations, entering addresses from the District, Arlington and Oregon. Nada, zip, zilch. What gives? Something is up with the database software managing their contact information, I presume. I’ve been going about signing up for e-mails from the Big Six and some of the others, but so far only the Giuliani campaign has kept me in the dark.

This reminds me a bit of my trouble getting approved for McCainSpace. I was eventually added, on the third try, but it’s not worth the trouble in any case.

And speaking of ill-implemented innovations, what pray tell, is going on with Giuliani’s Twitter account?

Rudy Giuliani Twitter account

I tried to add Giuliani as a Twitter friend several weeks ago, but nothing has changed. Moreover, it seems odd to be on Twitter but keep the updates private. I tried adding Giuliani again this past weekend, only to be informed that I had already submitted the request.

I’m guessing the campaign has a test post or two on Twitter, but are keeping it on hold until they’re ready to start using it. Compare with Mitt Romney, whose camp has either not yet claimed his account (Twitter has reserved the 2008 candidates’ names for them) or has simply decided it isn’t worth the effort. If the Giuliani campaign has in fact decided against Twittering, that’s perfectly fine, but quit teasing!

From a technical standpoint, these are obviously separate issues, but potential supporters who want to interact with the Giuliani campaign online are still getting the same mixed message.

Update: Blog P.I., with an an assist by techPresident, gets results! Or perhaps the third time really is a charm:

Dear William,

Welcome to the Team Rudy weekly wrap up email. This email will give you a snap shot of what Rudy’s been doing in the past week and all of the latest news from the campaign. I hope you enjoy it.

Sincerely,
DuHaime
Michael DuHaime
Campaign Manager
Rudy Giluiani Presidential Committee

“Sincerely, Duhaime”? Sort of like Morrissey or Liberace with the one-name moniker that’s a last name? If so, intriguing: first names are much more common (Beck, Madonna, Oprah, Cher, Penn, Teller).

Actually, I think what’s more likely is Gmail couldn’t load a signature image so displayed meta information instead. Just guessing, though. Maybe it’s more like a Van Halen-type thing.

The Google Primary II: Buy Your Rivals

Yesterday I managed to get a whole post out of the observation that most, but not all, of the top tier candidates are buying up their own names on Google AdWords. In this post, I’ll try to get some mileage out of reporting something more interesting:

The candidates who are bidding for their own names on Google’s advertising program are also bidding on their opponents’ names.

To take one example, when you search for Mitt Romney on Google, one of the ads you’ll see in the AdWords column along the right-hand side will be for John McCain. So I ran searches for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, and then I compared the results. If the image below hurts your eyes to read, right-click on the image and open a larger version into another browser tab. Here’s what I found, in the order listed:

2008 presidential candidates on Google AdWords

When you run these searches, slightly different ads come up each time. It’s probably in Google’s interest to mix it up some, not to mention a number of advertisers may be bidding the same amount on some of these phrases. Therefore, the image above is only meant to give a general idea of what ads will appear. For example, since I Photoshopped that together last night, I’ve now seen a Giuliani ad appear in a Romney search. It isn’t reflected above, but it has been factored into this post.

Okay, but who all bought who? Here’s whose name/keyword was bought by whom — keyword, then campaigns:

Clinton
Obama
Giuliani
Romney
McCain
Giuliani
Giuliani
McCain
McCain
Romney
Giuliani

If you’d rather see who bought whose name as a keyword, try this on for size — campaign, then keywords:

Obama
Clinton
Romney
McCain
Giuliani
Giuliani
Hillary

McCain
Romney
McCain
Giuliani

You can probably do all the same armchair analysis here that I can. Obama’s camp believes he can win over Hillary Clinton people (supporters, or those interested enough to Google her name), Romney’s team hopes to win over McCain people, McCain aims to pull support from both his GOP rivals, and the Giuliani squad is on a comparative buying spree, to the point of wooing some Hillary supporters. For some reason, nobody is bidding on either Edwards or Obama.

Meanwhile, in a post seemingly anticipating this one, Oregon Dem consultant Kari Chisholm observed:

The point of a Google ad isn’t to find people who know they’re looking for you — they should be able to find you just fine. It’s to find people who are looking for something else; and your candidate is the answer to their question. This will work even better for the second-tier candidates who aren’t getting much media attention.

I didn’t find any second-tier candidates bidding on the top-tier names, but he’s right: They should be. I also didn’t venture any further than the top six candidates as generally agreed upon by looking at polls, fundraising and what how the Washington Post/New York Times axis treats the various contenders. Another mini-study such as this might turn up some interesting results for other candidates, and other phrases that on which campaigns have bid.

Additionally, election campaigns are not the only customers bidding for higher-placed ads on Google AdWords — they are joined by various for- and not for-profit enterprises, who seek to associate their products and programs with the candidates listed. Here’s what I found, based on the screen caps taken on Saturday night:

  • YouTube — that is, Google — bought everybody. They also bid the most. Hmmm.
  • The Pew Forum, not (yet) owned by Google, was the only other website/organization to bid, and bid high on the words.
  • The Center for American Progress’ Campus Progress bought Obama, and Obama only.
  • Something called Ascend Alliance — which appears to be a student exchange program without the students — has bought Romney, but no one else.
  • The do-gooders do seem to like Romney: the One campaign claims “Romney wears ONE band.” The ONE blog provides evidence, although it could simply be that he held one in his hand.
  • Human Events bought Giuliani and more curiously, Obama as well.
  • Cringe-inducing pro-voting groups have attached themselves to Edwards (generationengage.org), Rudy (declareyourself.org) and Romney (megadittoes).
  • Moviefone and Tickets-for-Events.com are both betting that people mistake John Edwards for John Edward of “Crossing Over” fame (or “fame”).
  • Hillary, Obama, Edwards and Romney all have obviously for-profit concerns bidding on their words — selling buttons and T-shirts, mostly — perhaps saying less about how well they think those candidates will sell than about how the others will not. The market has spoken — and Republicans aren’t moving units so well these days.
  • Hillary, Obama and Romney are all popular enough as keywords that a link at the bottom of their columns will take you to more ads, if you wish.
  • Trouble for Romney: one of the websites bidding on his name is ConservativesAgainstRomney.com. Lucky for Giuliani, sister site ConservativesAgainstRudy.com does not appear to be bidding on his name.
  • On the other hand, the Conservative Book Club appears to have bid on Romney and Romney only, so he should be reassured that not all conservatives are against him.

Anything I missed? Let me know in the comments.

Update: Credit where it’s due: Jeff Jarvis had this idea last week, although we went about it in different ways. Meanwhile, Kate Kaye at the ClickZ News Blog decided to see which candidates had bid on certain issue-related keywords:

iraq war, troop surge, social security, poverty, global warming, climate change, new hampshire, homeland security, terrorism, immigration, us attorneys, alberto gonzales, iran, iran nuclear, nuclear weapons, china trade, trade deficit, wmd, afghanistan, pelosi syria, british sailors, retirement, gay rights, women rights, feminism, labor rights, minimum wage, living wage, abortion, pro life, roe v wade, draft, military draft

So who bought those key words? Apparently none of them.

The Google Primary I: Paying, Or Not Playing

Considering that Google controls just about half of the market for search in the U.S., that Google estimates its advertising network reaches 80% of U.S. Internet users, and that their program is extremely flexible, any political campaign should think strongly about using them. And even though pay-per-click ads are not without risk, this should be all the more true for a presidential campaign.

I’m working on a longer post looking at the 2008 candidates’ use of Google AdWords, but in the meantime, let’s first see who is playing and how they’re playing. Counting only the top six contenders from both parties, here’s what each campaign wants you to see at the top of a Google search results when you search for their name:

Giuliani's Google Sponsored Link

John McCain's Google Sponsored Link

Mitt Romney's Google Sponsored Link

Hillary Clinton's Google Sponsored Link

Barack Obama's Google Sponsored Link

John Edwards' Google Sponsored Link

Hillary has incorporated Blogads into her online strategy and Edwards has been running an online campaign since early 2005, yet neither have bothered to make sure their campaign sites are the top result on Google. (Of course, Google News results do appear beneath the Sponsored Links for the others, but I have cropped them out.) Although Democrats have rushed into Second Life and other brave new worlds, apparently two of their top contenders are ignoring plain old Google.

A few other findings, based on tedious reloading of the same searches, over and over:

  • Obama is indeed playing, but he’s not all in. His ad displays less than half the time — so if you don’t see it, hit reload.
  • For all three Republicans, their Sponsored Link appears almost every time, but not quite.
  • McCain has three different versions of his ad in rotation. Key phrases: “Learn More” and “Sign Up.”
  • Romney also has three versions rotating. Key phrases: “Build a New American Dream” and “Strong. New. Leadership.”
  • Giuliani has just the one pictured above.

More later. Stay tuned.

Honorable Mentions II: Where the 2008 Candidates Stand Today

Two months ago, Blog P.I. ran searches on the names of the top-contending 2008 presidential candidates through the Trend Tool at blog search engine Icerocket to see how often a candidate’s name appeared in blog posts over the previous month. We weren’t counting the positive or negative mentions, so this didn’t tell us how popular or unpopular a particular candidate was — but it did give a pretty good idea how intense was the interest in one candidate relative to the others.

Today we’ll update that, covering the time elapsed. We’ll start as we did before by comparing the top three contenders for both party. Although there has been relative movement among them, nobody new has clearly broken through or fallen out of each trio. Then we’ll get to the dark horses and mix things up a little.

Last time we started with the Dems, so let’s switch it up and begin with the GOPers:

Giuliani vs. McCain vs. Romney

Giuliani vs. McCain vs. Romney

McCain may not be the frontrunner any longer, but he apparently remains the most talked-about candidate. For the life of me I couldn’t remember what was happening with McCain during the spikes recorded here, so I went to Google BlogSearch, which lets you isolate search terms by date. The first spike was certainly nothing good — mostly posts about about his slipping support. The second spike coincided with his semi-unofficial announcement on the Letterman show, where comments ran a little better — but it also occasioned his slip of the tongue about lives “wasted” fighting in Iraq.

Being the new frontrunner, Giuliani only had two short-lived leads in early February and March. The first peak coincided with his statement of candidacy, and pales compared to McCain’s; the second appears to match up with the New York firefighters union — the Swiftboaters to Rudy’s Kerry? — releasing a letter opposing his bid. Otherwise, he seems to run consistently behind McCain and about even with Romney.

Romney’s first spike? His announcement at the Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan. His second spike was the CPAC conference — which explains why Giuliani actually saw his highest absolute mark for the period here as well, and perhaps why McCain experienced another short peak — much of which was probably about his decision not to attend. Actually, that may have been for the better — because as we all remember, the whole event was overshadowed by Ann Coulter. So let’s make a brief detour and look at how Coulter stacks up for the period against the candidates she appeared with:

Ann Coulter vs. Mitt Romney vs. Rudy Giuliani

Coulter vs. Romney vs. Giuliani

Yeah, that looks about right. How about the Dems?

Hillary vs. Obama vs. Edwards

Hillary vs. Obama vs. Edwards

When we last measured, all three candidates were just beginning to pick up serious attention, Hillary for her campaign launch and Obama for his exploratory announcement. But where Hillary was the slight leader last time, now she is clearly underperforming relative to her name ID. The huge spike for Obama centered around the weekend of Feb. 10 and 11 represents his more-official kickoff and the launch of his newfangled campaign site, which drew a good deal of positive notice. He commanded plenty of attention in the weeks after, but lately appears to be no more or less interesting to bloggers than Hillary. This could be a sign that the initial rush of attention has subsided, and he’s just another candidate in contention.

Oh, and that peak they share a week and a half after Obama’s announcement? That’s the argle-bargle started by David Geffen’s anti-Hillary comments to Maureen Dowd.

The Edwards spikes require no Googling: The first was Ann Coulter’s aformentioned braindead attack, and the second was the announcement that Elizabeth Edwards’ cancer had returned. Both have clearly earned him a good deal of attention, making him arguably the most interesting candidate of the Democratic field right now. On the other hand, while that attention has been positive, both instances are predicated on bad news — not exactly sustainable, or something you would want to sustain, anyway.

Now, onto more arbitrary comparisons:

Thompson vs. Gore vs. Bloomberg

Thompson vs. Gore vs. Bloomberg

As long as reputable pollsters are putting Al Gore into the mix, who am I to say they’re wrong? Likewise with Bloomberg — as long as respectable newspapers are writing stories about the possibility of a self-funded bid, who am I to leave him out?

Now, Gore just picked up an Academy Award for “An Inconvenient Truth” (as if you didn’t know what that huge spike in late February was about). And Fred Thompson, well, perhaps he’s just entertaining himself right now (but at least he did appear on a Sunday show recently). For these reasons, and because Bloomberg has a mighty populous city to run, I decided to append the word “president” to each search, just to keep things on topic. It didn’t change much.

That appearance was March 11, but interest has sustained relatively well until surging last week for no reason I can divine from patterns at the Blogsearch — but I’m guessing it has something to do with the first round of polls showing him with some credible support.

Bloomberg is still waiting for his surge. He may be waiting awhile — that near-flatline does accurately represent the (lack of) interest in such a campaign. For mirror-opposite reasons the same is true of Gore: he is larger than life, and if he did run, it’s not implausible that he could — as his former boss was always said to do — suck all the oxygen out of the room.

Edwards vs. McCain vs. Gore

Edwards vs. McCain vs. Gore

So here we compare the relative leaders in online mentions among the Democrats, Republicans and dark horses. (Yes, overall Obama has run stronger than Edwards this period, but let’s go with Edwards, who is closer-watched/has had bigger spikes lately — even if he has fallen into third in just the past few days.)

Clearly Edwards cannot compete with Gore’s Oscar — apparently only Coulter can do that — but aside from that, he doesn’t run too far behind. And McCain is at least competitive. He doesn’t have those huge spikes, but he has led Edwards several times (and upon his Letterman announcement, even Gore, briefly).

Hillary vs. Giuliani vs. Thompson

Hillary vs. Giuliani vs. Thompson

So how about those underperforming frontrunners, and the next-most-popular dark horse? Well, Rudy is no match for Hillary. This does seem to show that while he leads the traditional polls and has appreciable support among bloggers, he is not really the “rightroots” candidate — Thompson has been doing almost as well since his announcement. Their mentions rise and fall together enough to be worth mentioning, suggesting that the two are being compared against each other. Hillary’s mentions, however appear to be completely unrelated, and that makes sense as well. Even at their best, neither Giuliani nor Thompson have bested Hillary in blogger mentions this period.

Once again, we’re just measuring mindshare, and with the exception of Bloomberg, all of the candidates here have demonstrated the ability to capture it. So who knows whether it’s good to be a leader in these charts or not. Maybe that’s another study, for another time. For this time, we’ll leave it right here.

Hey, This Rudy Giuliani Site Isn’t Half Bad

The new website for Rudy Giuliani went live last week, and what was an attractive if perfunctory placeholder has now become an attractive and functional website. This shouldn’t be too surprising — when Bush-Cheney ‘04 blogmeister Patrick Ruffini announced in January that he was joining the Giuliani ‘08 team, that was a good sign the campaign would have a pretty decent website. And it is more than that — but it’s also not without flaws. So let’s take a look:

Join Rudy 2008 The Buzz

Is The Buzz is just a round-up of favorable coverage? Sure, but unlike the news feed from every other top-tier candidate, here the MSM and blogs coexist as equals. Romney’s page does link to favorable blog posts, but segregates them from the proper journalists; the others don’t link to bloggers at all. The Buzz also includes a quasi-Digg counter keeping track of how many times a story has been clicked. I assume this is imported from Ruffini’s 2008 Wire. Neither feature prevents a single user from clicking on a story multiple times to artificially inflate its relative significance. That’s a flaw on Ruffini’s own site, but not so much here.

Join Rudy 2008 widget

A fundraising widget? Now we’re talking. Other candidates will let you sign up to become a fundraiser, but only the Giuliani campaign makes it as easy as cut-and-paste. In contrast, the Romney campaign makes you join TEAM MITT before they’ll let you at their fundraising tool, the cumbersomely-titled QuickComMITT. Hillary wants you to sign up before you can send your friends e-mail pitches, and while I haven’t completed the Obama sign-up page, I get the impression it’s an updating thermometer akin to the old Howard Dean “fundraising bat.” All of these campaigns want to keep tabs on their individual fundraisers, but the Giuliani team can do that through this Flash-based widget, too. But most importantly, if you can put a YouTube video on your page, you can raise money for Rudy Giuliani.

Join Rudy 2008 social bookmarking

Ruffini is no great fan of the social bookmarking buttons that litter the bottom of many a blog post, but if the Giuliani campaign is using these ones, he must have decided these are the ones that work. That, or he was overruled. Regardless, Giuliani’s is the only campaign to make these tools standard across the website.

Join Rudy 2008 talk radio

Considering how important talk radio is to the Republican base — and to the Giuliani campaign — this is a good idea. And nobody else has one. Yet the execution and experience leaves something to be desired — the boxes are small, the “Select City” box is unused, and the final readout doesn’t tell you what time the radio programs are on or on what station. Perhaps a prospective caller should already know this, but if so, why bother with this feature? Bottom line: If you want people to volunteer on your behalf, it helps to connect the dots for them.

And now, onto the less-good:

Join Rudy 2008 clutter

So it’s not perfect. I keep getting this dotted outline whenever I click on links from this panel. Not a big deal, but it does disrupt the browsing experience.

Join Rudy 2008 video problems

Now, this is a bigger deal. I got this message at home last night and again at work today. Both connections qualify as “broadband,” I’m on a MacBook Pro and using the latest version of Firefox. What’s a guy gotta do to watch some video around here? Actually, once I finally got the error message to go away (I was starting to wonder if Amazon’s one-click patent was written into McCain-Feingold…) the video worked just fine. On the other hand, it took too long to load. On the other other hand, the now-you-see-them-now-you-don’t controls worked like a charm.

And the best-laid schemes o’ mice and men gang aft agley, but this is still kind of embarrassing:

Republican presidential front-runner Rudy Giuliani’s campaign hurriedly fixed its official Web site late Monday to remove a dangerous design flaw that could have allowed hackers to expose personal information submitted by volunteers.

The vulnerability affecting Giuliani’s site, http://www.JoinRudy2008.com, could have exposed confidential information stored in the campaign’s databases. The Web site failed to block commands that can instruct it to improperly display sensitive information, a popular hacking technique known as “structured query language injection.”

“Anybody who knows anything about security could have found these problems in two seconds,” said Marc Maiffret of eEye Digital Security Inc., a researcher who examined Giuliani’s Web site at AP’s request.

Aren’t you glad they didn’t make you sign up to fundraise now? I kid, I kid. So again, it’s a work in progress.

It’s also worth noting what isn’t included. Notably absent are any of the front-page social networking icons that most of the other candidates include. Before My.BarackObama.com and McCainSpace I wouldn’t have thought to mention that there is no social network, but there isn’t one. And there is no blog. A Facebook button wouldn’t kill them, but the one place they really need one is in their social bookmark toolbar — and it is. Meanwhile, a campaign probably doesn’t need to bother with their own blog unless they have a compelling reason to do so. And while I do think a Giuliani-based social network could succeed (call me crazy) it certainly is no requirement.

All in all, not bad. And I bet as the campaign goes forward, it’ll get even better.

What the Media Can’t Do for Mitt Romney

The Romney campaign has to be pretty happy with liberal historian Rick Perlstein this week, or about as happy as they could be with anyone accusing them of winking at anti-Semitism. On Wednesday TNR Online published an article in which he argued that media reports highlighting complaints about Mitt Romney’s Henry Ford Museum announcement speech will help him connect with skeptical conservatives.

The thrust of Perlstein’s argument is that identity, or “tribal” issues, matter in partisan politics, and the more critical stories about Romney that appear in the elite media, the better he is likely to do with the Republican base. As he summarizes: “Get branded such a villain by our liberal elites, and you also might win a Republican primary.” The logic is sound enough, but Perlstein ascribes too much power to this phenomenon. Just because the “liberal media” is antagonistic toward a Republican candidate is not enough to change the fundamentals, and Romney’s fundamentals are bad.

Let’s start with this passage from his article, where Perlstein turns to the Internet to substantiate his point:

Consider the sarcastic reflection of this denizen of the right-wing website Free Republic:

    Allright, an AP hit piece! The MSM has more acute RINOdar than we. Real RINO’s don’t get rinky-dink MSM hit pieces such as this. This proves that the MSM believes Romney is a conservative, and therefore must be roughed up.

Translation: I used to suspect that Romney was only a “Republican in Name Only.” But now I realize: He bugs the liberal media. By the tribal logic of right-wing identity politics, that is enough–Mitt Romney now can be called a conservative.

This interpretation is overly reductive — even Newtonian. As Perlstein would have it, for every action on the part of the media, there is an equal and opposite reaction from the conservative base. Leaving aside the fact that the Henry Ford story is less a flap than a blip — only the National Jewish Democratic Council made an issue of it, and Media Matters has pronounced the story “ignored” — it assumes that conservatives are captives of their distrust of the mainstream media.

Perlstein’s suggestion that dubious media attacks on Romney could bolster his support on the right almost certainly gets it backward: politicians who enjoy notable support in this regard have already bonded with their base. Presidents are frequent recipients; as the headlines got worse for Clinton and Bush through their two terms, the base rallied around them (although Bush seems to have exhausted that reserve of goodwill). Galvanizing candidates, such as Howard Dean, also can receive this kind of support. Unfortunately for Romney, he is neither.

Perlstein buttresses his case by comparing Romney’s announcement to a controversial 1980 campaign speech by onetime liberal Ronald Reagan. According to Perlstein, Reagan benefited from “all that outrage” over the location: Philadelphia, MS, site of the infamous 1964 Klan murders of civil rights workers. But there are several problems here. As noted above, the outrage about Romney’s speech was very limited and even treated like a joke. As even Perlstein admits of Ford’s Nazi sympathies, “Those memories no longer exist–except to the hair-trigger sensitivities of the likes of the NJDC.” Additionally, those Klan murders are the only reason anyone outside of Mississippi has heard of that particular Philadelphia, whereas the Ford musesum is pure Americana — technological innovation and nostalgia for what technology has made obsolete. And by 1980 Reagan was already a conservative hero, which of course Romney is not.

Perlstein also misses a few things about conservative “tribal” identity. Early in the article he asks:

Some observers wondered if perhaps [spotlighting noted anti-Semite Henry Ford] wasn’t intentional: If you want to prove to conservatives you’re no liberal, what better way than to announce on the former estate of a man who, as the NJDC also pointed out, was “bestowed with the Grand Service Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle by Adolf Hitler”?

“Nazi” is an epithet hurled at Republicans by liberals; it’s not a badge of honor and not a term that is available to be “reclaimed” like “bitch” or “queer.” Considering evangelical Christians’ close alliance with conservative Jews, their support of Israel above the Palestinians, and the growing perception that the “new anti-Semitism” is a liberal disease, there’s no percentage (in the polls or otherwise) in such a strategy. Bank shots are risky; bank shots that contradict your own beliefs are doubly so. Bank shots opening oneself up to charges of bigotry are dangerously stupid.

Not to mention, I’m not even sure that the Free Republic quote really says what Perlstein thinks it does. The comment at once suggests that the AP can accurately identify fake conservatives, and then implies that the media thinks Romney is a true conservative. Perhaps this commenter agrees with the media, but most Freepers do not. At best, Romney’s conservative credentials are a matter of debate. For example, check out the Free Republic thread responding to this exact same Perlstein article, where one finds a few Romney apologists, but others saying things like:

Strange that he was really pro life after professing to be pro-choice since 1970. And that he thought since Roe V wade was already decided, we should “sustain and support it”.

Plus he’s a gun grabber who is now trying to kiss the NRA’s butt.

At least with rudy you know you’re getting a liberal. With romney you’re getting a used car salesman who will say whatever it takes to get elected. In 2004 we called that ‘flip flopping’ when a certain democrat did it.

Flip-flopping is a charge Democrats would love to be able to throw back at Republicans in 2008, and Romney is the most susceptible. Romney has made the mistake of trying to persuade social conservatives that he is one of them, despite well-publicized past statements to the contrary. Like John Kerry, he may have flopped in the “correct” direction — but also like John Kerry, he can’t find the words to adequately explain why.

Contrast this with Giuliani’s approach: he too was elected by a left-leaning electorate, is openly pro-choice, and has similar hurdles to overcome. But so far at least, he isn’t trying to sell himself as a Bush-style social conservative. By downplaying his personal beliefs while promising to appoint strict constructionist judges, he’s selling himself as an ally of Bush-style social conservatives.

Even if we do accept Perlstein’s Newtowian politics, there’s so much more dirt out there about Giuliani that all those negative stories would surely generate more reactive reactionary reinforcement for him than Romney. And unlike Romney, Giuliani has never publicly disavowed Ronald Reagan. Among tribal issues, that will matter much more than anything the MSM can say.